Sie sind auf Seite 1von 27

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET) Volume 8, Issue 11, November 2017, pp. 812–838, Article ID: IJMET_08_11_083 Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=8&IType=11 ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359

© IAEME Publication

0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359 © IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed REVIEW ON RISK, RISK ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES,

Scopus Indexed

REVIEW ON RISK, RISK ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES, GUIDELINES AND FRAMEWORK IN PORT SAFETY

Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty Amrin Department of Engineering, Razak School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, Kuala Lumpur, 54100, Malaysia

ABSTRACT Risk management and risk assessment guidelines and framework have been widely developed for ages. Even in safety, risk assessment guidelines and framework are crucial and considered important in the safety management system of an organization. The variety and complexity of port operations lead to varied risks. These risks, if not managed well, can affect the overall business operation of the ports, which then leads to accidents. A study found that port professionals face difficulties in conducting risk assessments due to the lack of appropriate methodology and evaluation techniques to support their risk management cycles. The aim of this paper is to identify, review, and carry out comparisons to risk assessment elements in frameworks related to port terminal safety activities. The selected frameworks were summarized based on its requirements, followed by being defined by its advantages and limitations, and finally, the comparison of frameworks was carried out. The outcomes of the study will be a supplement to current knowledge on the assessment guidelines and framework of such systems, advanced risk management models, and general guidelines on the improvement of current frameworks and procedures. Concurrently, this study shall benefit the participating ports in analyzing their particular risk management systems.

Keywords: Port, Risk Assessment, Risk Management Framework, Transport and Logistics.

Cite this Article: Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty Amrin, Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology 8(11), 2017, pp. 812–838.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=8&IType=11

1. INTRODUCTION

In Malaysia, accident records are updated by the Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) Malaysia by industry in order to monitor accidents in Malaysian industries. According to the statistics of accidents by sector recorded by DOSH Malaysia from the year

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

812
812

editor@iaeme.com

Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

2013 to August 2016, by industry, the highest number of accidents occurred in the manufacturing industry (6847 cases). It is followed by the agriculture, foresting, logging and fishing industry (1812 cases), the construction industry (717 cases), and the transport, storage and communication industry (432 cases). Since the manufacturing industry contributes the highest number of accidents in Malaysia, massive studies have been conducted by researchers such as [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] to investigate and propose a solution to improve accident prevention in the manufacturing industry of Malaysia. However, less attention was directed to the transportation, storage, and communication industry. This statement was supported by Auyong et al. [6]. The previous studies conducted in the transport, storage and communication industry in Malaysia are not as significant as other industries. In the year 2016, there have been three fatality cases recorded in ports. This number increased compared to last year, which only recorded 1 case. Even the amount of cases is small compared to other industries such as the construction industry (55 cases), the agriculture, forest, logging, and fishing industry (14 cases) and the manufacturing industry (32 cases), but the fact that the workplace may not be safe as accidents and fatalities have happened should not be ignored. If fatalities happen, it shows that there is a possibility that near-miss accidents or any other accidents may happen. This is based on Heinrich’s accident model theory, where if one serious or fatality case has happened, then there will be at least twenty-nine minor injury cases, three hundred near-miss accidents, and three thousand unsafe acts and conditions predicted to happen. This was approved by Gnoni and Salleh [9]. This shows that necessary countermeasures should be performed to prevent the same accidents from happening again in the future. The massive development of the port industry does not align with the development of port safety management systems [10]. Major accidents such as the warehouse explosion in 2015 at the Tianjin port are still happening. Ng et al. [11] found that many accidents have happened while handling cargoes at port, especially if the activity involves manual handling, as the employees are directly exposed to hazards and risks. The variety of complex activities performed in port terminals include passenger transport, cargo and container handling, oil and chemicals storage, vehicle storage and transport, ship, lorry and train circulation, all of which create risks and hazards. These risks and hazards are exposed to persons such as the crew, passengers, port users and port workers, the environment (nature) and property such as ships, port facilities, and port labour, and others [12]. If it is not managed and controlled, it would create unwanted events like unsafe acts and conditions [9], which will eventually cause major accidents such as fatalities. These activities have their own risks and need to be assessed and evaluated to place appropriate control measures to prevent accidents. Risk assessment in the port industry is necessary. This is because the port is considered as a high-risk industry [18]. Previously, much port safety research focused on maritime risk issues which mainly suggested the need for developing a rigid and efficient qualitative and quantitative risk assessment approaches that prioritizes hazards at ports. However, there are relatively few studies on port safety and risks that focused on port terminal activities [15,19] as many other authors only focused on maritime risks which covers ship operations and ship collisions at any area of the sea or anchorage. Risk assessment is one of the main components of an effective safety management system and accident prevention. An effective risk assessment in terms of implementation and framework is necessary to support the idea of an effective safety management system. Previous literature has highlighted many gaps in terms of frameworks, scopes, and methodology in managing accidents in a high-risk industry, especially in organizations with a complex operational system, such as in the port industry. This gap needs to be closed to ensure that the dynamic implementation of the theory is established and fully developed.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

813
813

editor@iaeme.com

Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty Amrin

2. TERMS, DEFINITIONS, AND CONCEPTS

A fundamental concept in this study is to understand the terms related to risks. Different terms

and definitions exist due to a few factors, such as different perspectives, the adjustment of the terms itself to fit the industry, and philosophical needs and requirements. Even if it has

different definitions, the objectives and purpose are to be accomplished in the same way. Generally, risks can be defined as the probability that harm happens [20]. The risk is symbolized by the function of severity (the degree of harm or its consequences) and the likelihood of the occurrence of the threatening event, as simplified in Equation 1. In any case, it provides the risk assessment that leads to the misconception that risk is just a number in terms of risk (R), its probability (P), and the consequences (C).

=

(1)

In the perspective of safety, risk is defined differently depending on the application’s domain. According to the OSHAS 18001 standard, risk is defined as a combination of the likelihood of the occurrence of a hazardous event within a specified period or in specified circumstances and the severity of injury or damage to the health of the people, property, the environment or any combination of these that are caused by the event. In this standard, the definition of consequence is more detailed as the consequences are referred to by the harm that is created if the risk exposure is high is addressed.

Meanwhile, the definition of risk management can be varied as well. But as a general definition by all researchers, risk management is the structured process of identifying and assessing risk and then designing strategies and procedures to mitigate and control the identified risk factors. Risk management is defined in ISO 31000 [37] as the effect of uncertainty on objectives. Numerous studies have attempted to explain the techniques for managing and controlling risk. Risk assessment study is not new but in fact, it has been analyzed and practiced for ages. Many companies practices and manages risks to standardize and organize the organization’s operations [20, 21, 22]. Thekdi and Aven [23] proposed a good risk management system that

is able to reduce risks (risk reduction shown by risk assessments or understood as perceived

risk reduction), improve occupational safety and health levels (to reduced risk), meet the requirements set by current practices (for example, by using quantitative risk analysis, risk acceptance criteria, or tolerability limits), meet the International risk management standards, and meet the ideas of other “broader” risk frameworks. One of the major components in port risk management standards is risk assessment [24, 25]. During the last three decades, risk assessment has emerged as an essential and systematic tool that plays a relevant role in the overall management of many aspects of our life [26]. Analysis techniques are applied in many different areas for different purposes [27]. Risk assessment is generally defined as the process of identifying and evaluating risks or hazards [28]. Pak et al. [29] agreed and defined risk assessment or risk analysis as the process of identifying and evaluating risks in an organization. Risk assessment can be defined as the process of identifying and evaluating risk in the organization. The definition of risk management can be varied. But as a general definition by all researchers, risk management is the structured process of identifying and assessing risks and then designing strategies and procedures to mitigate and control the identified risk factors. Table 1 below provides terms, definition and concepts of risk, risk assessment, and risk management based on selected standards and guidelines. In many risk management frameworks, risk assessments are one of the major components which serve as a crucial step in managing risks. Risk assessments can have varied definitions. In general, a risk assessment is the process of identifying, evaluating and assessing risk. Table 1 summarized a few definitions of risk assessment based on a few sources.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

814
814

editor@iaeme.com

Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

Table 1 Risk Assessment definitions

   

Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (Act 514)- Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control (HIRARC),

 

International

ISO 31000:

OSHAS 18001:

Maritime

2009 ‘Risk

Occupational Health and Safety Management System

Organization

Terms

Management-

(IMO) 2001-

Principles and

Formal Safety

Guidelines[37]

[39]

Assessment

(FSA)[40]

2008[38]

   

A

combination of the

   

likelihood of an occurrence of a hazardous event (within a specified

Risk

The effect of uncertainty on objectives

period or in specified circumstances) and the severity of injury

N/A

N/A

or

damage (to the

 

health of people, property, or the environment) or any combination of these caused by the event.

Risk

The overall process of risk identification, risk analysis, and risk evaluation.

The process of evaluating any risks potentially endangering safety and health arising from hazards at work.

The process of evaluating the risks arising from the hazards (a combination of the likelihood of a hazardous event or the exposure to it and the severity of injury or ill health that can be caused by the event after exposure).

The combination of the frequency and the severity of the consequence.

Assessment

Risk

A series of coordinated activities to direct and control an organization with regards to risk

The total procedure associated with identifying a hazard, assessing the risks, putting in place control measures, and reviewing the outcomes.

   

Management

N/A

N/A

3. OVERVIEW OF PORT OPERATIONS

The main activities conducted in Malaysian ports are importation, exportation, and transshipment. There are many types of operations and cargo handling at ports. A multipurpose port offers dedicated facilities and services to handle a wide variety of cargoes ranging from containers to cars, break bulk cargoes, as well as the capacity to handle liquid and dry bulk cargoes of all types and shipment sizes. There are also Malaysian ports which focus on containerized types of cargoes only while there are also ports focused on liquid bulk

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

815
815

editor@iaeme.com

Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty Amrin

or break bulk cargoes only. It all depends on the availability of port facilities and the business orientation of the port. Despite the main activities of a port which is the handling of cargoes, a port is also exposed to major risks in handling dangerous goods in cargoes or containers. Several ports in Malaysia function solely as a liquid bulk terminal which handles not only non-dangerous goods cargoes such as palm-oil, but it also handles dangerous goods cargoes such as liquid nitrogen gas (LNG), petroleum, etc. There are also dangerous goods cargoes packed in containers, tankers, and loose cargoes, which also bring about a high safety risk which may result in scenarios such as explosions, corrosions, fires, and environmental risks. The port industry is considered as a complex industry which involves several logistics activities. The industry is unique as it involves a combination of sea and land activities (Figure 1). A great variety of activities are performed at ports: marine operations such as towage and pilotage, transportation of passengers; transportation of cargoes; storage of oil and chemicals; storage and transportation of cars; circulation of ships, cranes, lorries, and trains etc.

cars; circulation of ships, cranes, lorries, and trains etc. Figure 1 Port Operations (container terminal) 4.

Figure 1 Port Operations (container terminal)

4. METHODOLOGY

In this paper, a total of 210 papers with keywords of “Risk”, “Risk assessment at ports”, and “Safety at ports” were identified. A total of 186 papers were reviewed and discussed in this paper. An extensive review was conducted on available risk assessment guidelines to identify the current risk assessment and risk management frameworks and guidelines. The findings from the preliminary study were used as the basis for developing the risk assessment frameworks and guidelines. Since the involvement of international connections with ports, ports need to comply with local rules and regulations, which will lead to safety in maritime transports, which is an essential condition for the proper functioning of economies.

5. HAZARDS AND RISK IN THE PORT INDUSTRY

In the port industry, there are many hazards produced from complex activities. For example, Lu and Kuo [30] found that container terminal operations are hazardous since stevedores are often involved in various risky workplace activities that include cranes operations, lashing, electrical repairs, tally operations and truck driving. The complexity of the variety of activities of the port led to the port to be considered as “a place of risk”, where hazards can be directed to persons, the environment, and/or property [13]. Regarding port hazards, Chlomoudis et al. [12], collected feedback from port experts and grouped the hazards into five groups of risk categories based on accident causes, which included human, machinery, environment, security and natural causes. This study suggested the Port Risk Assessment (PRA) method, which was workable in the ports in Greece.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

816
816

editor@iaeme.com

Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

A case study was conducted by Bouzaher et al. [13] on the Algerian port. This study aims

to contribute to the management of risks associated with port operations by designing a matrix

for the specific assessment of this type of risk based on analysis of several incidents and accidents regarding maneuvering ships in Algerian ports. The design of the evaluation matrix of risks associated with port operations in Algeria is done in the context of the Formal Safety Assessment methodology for improved performance of this method in terms of precision and accuracy of results.

Chlomoudis et al. [12] also suggested a risk assessment method based on man-related risk factors, by which cover nine risk factors. Ding and Tseng [14] conducted a risk assessment on safety operations for exclusive container terminals at the Kaohsiung port in Taiwan. The case studies involved sixteen (16) risk factors which were categorized into four groups: man, machine, media, and management. From this study, it was found that three (3) risk factors which were all categorized in the man category was identified as high leading risks. Based on the analysis of the typical accidents in China in the last decade, new challenges in safety risk management include the control of unsafe human behavior, technological innovation in safety risk management, and design of safety risk management regulations. This is the main factor in managing risk and safety not only in the port industry but in all industries. Fabiano et al. [15] studied the interaction between the human factor and accidents at ports. They found that the human factor was not the most vital factor, but is the technical or technology factor instead. Port activities are wide-ranging and include berthing/unberthing, vessel loading/unloading, assets maintenance, dangerous goods management, warehousing, storage of bulk goods, inter-modal transport movements, waste disposal, stevedoring, bunkering, pilotage, towage and boat repairs, and maritime services. The complexity of port activities implies certain risks. Risk management is effective in its ability to reduce accidents [16, 23]. The existence of a hazard at the workplace such as physical hazards [31], ergonomics hazards [32, 33], safety hazards, chemical and dust hazards [34], and health hazards need to be managed and controlled. These hazards contribute to the possibility of people getting harmed. If not identified, these hazards can cause accidents if the exposure to the hazards is high. Thus, it is essential for risk to be managed and controlled to reduce the accident rate. By doing that, an organization can avoid damage and loss of profit and reputation. The main activities conducted in Malaysia ports are importation, exportation and transshipment. There are many types of operations and cargo handling activities at a port. For

a multipurpose port, it usually offers dedicated facilities and services to handle the wide

variety of cargoes ranging from containers to cars, break bulk cargoes, as well as having the capacity to handle liquid and dry bulk cargoes of all types and shipment sizes. There are also Malaysia ports which focus on containerized cargoes only and there are also ports focused on liquid bulk or break bulk cargoes only. Despite the main activity of the port, which is

handling cargoes, the port is also exposed to major risks in handling Dangerous Goods cargoes or containers. Several ports in Malaysia act solely as liquid bulk terminals, which handle not only non-dangerous goods cargoes such as palm oil, but also handles dangerous goods cargoes such as liquid nitrogen gas (LNG), petroleum, etc. There may also be dangerous goods cargoes packed in containers, tankers, and loose cargoes, which bring about

a high safety risk that may cause incidents such as explosions, corrosions, fires, and

environmental risks [35]. The development of the port industry is still blooming [1]. Many of the ports in Malaysia are still expanding and developing. The pressure for good port management in handling the safety and health of their employees in their organizations is highly important [36]. Thus, specialized and specific port safety management systems and risk management systems can help these ports in managing their occupational safety and health management processes. To facilitate the port safety management system, suitable risk

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

817
817

editor@iaeme.com

Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty Amrin

assessments and decision support tools are required. The port industry requires access to several methods and tools to be able to analyze the wide variety of risk-related problems (which could raise qualitatively or quantitatively) or more advanced techniques (that consider the complexity and variety of the system and uncertainties) are needed, but for different purposes and situations.

6. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS IN IMPLEMENTING RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT PORTS

Port activities cover both maritime and terminal areas. Thus, the complexity of port activities can be varied. It involves both sea and inland activities. Since there is the involvement of international connections at ports, ports need to comply with local rules and regulations which will lead to safety in maritime transport, which is an essential condition for the proper functioning of economies. As of now, in Malaysia, there are no specific safety guidelines for ports. In many countries, whether on a national or international scope, risk management is legally required by the authorities to promote a safety management system. The legal requirements in implementing a risk management system is an effort by safety and health authorities in controlling and preventing accidents in the industry [41, 42, 43]. Even though it is a legal requirement, the implementation of risk management in the industry is still challenging. A study conducted by Lenhard and Beck [44] revealed that only one out of four companies carry out risk assessments in Germany. This does not only happen in Germany, but in other countries such as Sweden and other country as well. It shows that the implementation of risk assessments is still very challenging. Lenhard and Beck [44] found that the availability of safety specialist assistance, occupational health specialist assistance, a relationship with the production sector, the presence of an employee representative body, and the economic situation of the company can all affect the implementation of a risk assessment system. This shows that the implementation of a risk assessment system can be very challenging for companies or institutions, even though it is legally required. From Malaysian legislation perspectives, it is stressed that it is the employer’s responsibility in managing occupational safety and health in the workplace. It also believes that the responsibility of the general safety of the workplace lies in the hands of the employer, as the hazards and risk exposure is created by them. Thus, most of the world’s organizations have implemented a risk management system not only for safety reasons but also for the business overview of the company to manage the risks within their company [45]. Malaysia’s Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) established the Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control (HIRARC) guidelines in 2005 with the purpose of promoting and providing help to industries to perform hazard identification and risk assessments. The guideline provides a systematic and objective approach to assessing hazards and their associated risks that will provide an objective measure for managing an identified hazard as well as provide a method to control the risk. The existing frameworks in the guideline should be simple enough to be used by small and medium industries and versatile enough to be used by those involved in various economic sectors, either in the manufacturing sector, construction sector, or any other economic sectors. However, the implementation of a risk management system in preventing accidents in Malaysia is still lacking [46]. The implementation of a risk assessment system seems to be hard for industries to cope with. Since it is not specific, the organization might find it harder and less motivating to implementing a risk assessment system in the organization.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

818
818

editor@iaeme.com

Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

7. RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, GUIDELINES, AND FRAMEWORKS

There are many risk management standards that have been developed in other industries, such as the Project Management Institute, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, actuarial societies, Australia and New Zealand’s standard, the British standard, the American standard, and International Standard Organization (ISO) standards as listed in Table 2. Each of these standards provides different frameworks that suit the needs of different institutions or organizations. Most of the risk management standards using the same process, but with enhanced criteria to best suit each component and application of risk management. One of the major components in risk management standards is risk assessment.

Table 2 Selected standards/ frameworks/ guidelines

Standards/

Framework/

Guidelines

Main Components

Description

ILO Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems [46]

Policy (elements: policy and worker participation); Organizing (elements:

responsibility and accountability, competence and training, documentation, and communication); Planning and implementation (elements: initial review, system planning, development and implementation, objectives and hazard prevention); Evaluation (elements: performance monitoring and measurement, investigation of work-related injuries, ill-health, diseases and incidents, audit and management review). Action for improvement (elements:

preventive and corrective action and continual improvement).

The guidelines emphasize the need for continual improvement of performance through the constant development of policies, systems, and techniques to prevent and control work-related injuries, ill health, diseases, and accidents.

Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSAS

18001)[39]

Planning for hazard assessment, risk assessment, and risk control OHSAS management programme Structure and responsibility Training, awareness and competence Consultation and communication Operational control Emergency preparation and response Performance measurement, monitoring, and improvement

OHSAS 18001 specifies requirements for the OH&S management system, which is to enable organizations to control their risks and improve their performance. The specification is intended to address occupational health and safety rather than product or service safety.

AS/NZ ISO 31000:

2009 ‘Risk

Establishing the context Risk assessment – risk

Standards that stress the purpose & benefits, risk assessment, the risk

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

819
819

editor@iaeme.com

Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty Amrin

Standards/

   

Framework/

Main Components

Description

Guidelines

management-

identification, risk analysis, risk evaluation Risk treatment Communication and consultation Monitoring and review

management frameworks, and the risk management process.

Principles and

guidelines[37]

 

International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2001- Formal Safety Assessment

Hazard identification Risk analysis Risk control options Cost-benefits assessment Recommendations for decision- making

The Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) standard offers a structured and systematic methodology for assessing the risks related to maritime safety and marine environmental protection and for evaluating the costs and reducing risks. The FSA recognizes that there are several different interests involved in shipping, such as ship owners, cargo owners, third parties, passengers, crews, flag states, port states, insurers, class societies, associations, and much more. Their attitudes and actions are significant influential factors in safety and marine environmental protection.

(FSA)[40]

Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (Act 514)- Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control (HIRARC),

Classify work activities Hazard identification Analyze and estimate risks Risk assessment Selecting control Implement Review and monitoring

The HIRARC guideline provides a systematic and objective approach to assessing hazards and their associated risks that will provide an objective measure to eliminate an identified hazard as well as provide a method to control the risk. It is one of the general duties as prescribed by the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (Act 514) for the employer to provide a safe workplace for their employees and other related persons.

2008[38]

DNV (2011)- Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) technique. [47]

Definition of ports and hazardous trades Hazard identification Frequency estimation Consequence estimation Risk presentation

These techniques are applied to British waters and ports to assess risks of the maritime transportation of dangerous goods in British waters and ports. The framework helps control the risks of major accidents from bulk shipment of dangerous cargoes including crude oil, flammable and toxic liquefied gases, flammable liquid petroleum products, flammable liquid chemicals, and ammonium nitrate (i.e. dry bulk cargoes) from affecting people ashore.

Marine Accident Risk Calculation System (MARCS), 2000 [48]

Analyze historical accident data to predict risks.

The guidelines developed and used for maritime risk calculation. It was developed in a project named SAFECO (Safety of Shipping in Coastal Waters) that was carried out by a consortium contracted by the Commission of

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

820
820

editor@iaeme.com

Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

Standards/

Framework/

Guidelines

Main Components

Description

European Community (CEC) through the 4th Framework Programme, Waterborne Transport.

Risk-Based Decision-Making (RBDM) Guidelines U.S. Coast Guard (USCG 2001)[49]

Variation of risk assessment tools collected by various expert organizations and experts individuals.

Guidelines that provide a massive number of tools. It was developed by various organisations and individuals. Some of the guidelines were exclusively developed for the USCG, such as the Port and Waterway Risk Assessment Guides (PWRA) and the Waterway Evaluation Tool (WET).

QRA and Risk- Effect Model

(REM)[50]

Identification of the causes of possible events; Assessment of the probability of possible accidents and boundary conditions; Calculation of the physical effects of an accident; Assessment of the probability of the consequences for people and the environment; Assessment of individual risks, societal risks, environmental risks, and economic risks.

A model focused on the transportation of hazardous substances which risk assessment approach has been developed in the Netherlands for applications on roads, trains, pipelines, and inland waterway transportation.

As mentioned in terms, definitions, and concepts, risk management systems include risk assessment, risk analysis, and risk evaluation. Risk assessment is generally defined as the process of identifying and evaluating risks or hazards. Risk management guidelines and frameworks have been widely developed for ages [51]. Even in safety, risk assessment guidelines and frameworks are crucial in the safety management system of an organization. The variety and complexity of port operations bring about various risks. These risks, if not managed well, can affect the overall business operation of ports, which then lead to accidents. A study found that a problem that port professionals (e.g. port risk managers and port auditors) are facing is the lack of appropriate methodology and evaluation techniques to support their risk management cycles [52]. Port activities cover both maritime and terminal areas. Thus, the complexity of port activities can be varied. It involves both sea and inland activities. Since there is involvement of international connections with ports, ports need to comply with local rules and regulations on the safety of maritime transportation for the proper functioning of economies. Preben and Kringen [53] argued on the important role of risk governance in risk management implementation. They highlighted the function of roles and responsibilities, knowledge, and regulatory complexity by comparing two cases at a Norwegian port that was affected by the implementation of effective risk management in its port area. These risk governance processes are indeed shaped by individual actions and organizational strategies, but more generally by interactions and communication that have conditioned the social process of risk perception and the characterization of the risks. The complexity of technical, economic, organizational, and political conditions underline that the risk assessment framework cannot independently characterize risks of a specific established institution, such as the port itself and practical arrangements in local context. The real challenge appears to be

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

821
821

editor@iaeme.com

Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty Amrin

related to the implementation of both the conceptual, analytical, and not least, the practical concerns that arise in dealing with the multifaceted and complex risk governance processes in modern society, in which sufficient governmental capacity is needed to integrate all the concerns and issues in such processes, which appears to be the most critical factor. The structured and specific guidelines and frameworks are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of risk management, especially at ports [54]. This was agreed by Le Duy et al. [55], as they found that the implementation and standards of risk management are not aligned between organizations due to some unfulfilled criteria. In their study, they suggested that some criteria be modified so that the same standard can be practiced across different organizations. Knudsen and Hassle [56] argued on the effectiveness of risk management since it is not possible to eliminate risks completely, but partly and more relevantly because existing global regulations are not being implemented effectively. A study conducted by Montewka et al. [57] showed that within certain, predefined boundaries, the modular nature of the risk framework allows for its continuous improvement and adaptation to various conditions. Despite the simplifications and the assumptions made in the framework, the results obtained are promising and show good agreement with the available statistical or modelled data on RoPax accidents operating around Europe. However, this study does not state any specific risk factors for risks in the Gulf of Finland, as the aim of the analysis presented is to demonstrate the abilities of the framework for knowledge-based risk assessment and proper reflection of uncertainties, which are inherent to any risk analysis. The International Standard Organisation AS/NZ ISO 31000: 2009 ‘Risk Management - Principles and Guidelines’ [37] provides principles and common procedures on risk management. The general principles of risk management can be applied to any public, private, or community-based enterprise, association, group, or individual. Thus, the use of this international standard is not industry or sector specific. In this sense, these principles can be recommended for most organization’s risk management process for any projects. The recognition of these principles is the first step towards the construction of a risk management framework. The main steps in this framework are to start with establishing the context, then conduct a risk assessment through risk identification, risk analysis, and risk evaluation. Next, risk treatment is introduced, accompanied by risk communication and consultation and finally, performance monitoring and reviews. In advanced countries such as Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, safety authorities have taken advanced initiatives in established guidelines and codes of practice specific for port management systems, as they consider the complexity and variety of port operations different from other industries [58]. Recently, Ireland’s health and safety authorities published the “Code of Practice for Health and Safety in Dock Work, 2016” in accordance with Section 60 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. This code of practice provides practical guidance on observing the control of hazards in the docks and ports industry. In the United States of America, the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) [59] was first published in March 2000 by the Department of Transport and revised in 2009. It establishes an agreed national standard for port marine safety and a measure where the harbour authorities can be held accountable for legal powers and duties, so they must run their harbours safely. New Zealand recently revised their 2004 Code and set up a collaborative programme for outstanding performance on Safety Management System (SMS) assessments by establishing the 2015 edition of the New Zealand Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code (the Code) [26]. The Code intends to assist port operators and councils in managing the safety of marine activities in their ports and harbours by providing a voluntary national standard to support international and local legislation. In Australia, the Australian Port Marine Safety Management Guidelines (2015) [61] were introduced. The aim of the Port Marine Safety

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

822
822

editor@iaeme.com

Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

Management Guidelines for Australian Ports (the Guidelines) is to promote good practice in the conduct of safe marine operations. They provide a framework which ports in Australia may choose to use as a guide. Internationally, formal safety assessment guidelines are available for the port, maritime, and shipping industries [20, 63]. Literary reviews show studies on numerous maritime-related risks using formal safety assessment methods [13, 57, 64]. Wang and Foinikis [65] explored the formal safety assessment (FSA) of containerships by using fault tree analysis (FTA) for hazard identification and risk evaluation. Formal safety assessment guidelines are a stepwise approach comprising of the five following interrelated steps [66]: hazard identification, risk analysis, risk control options, cost-benefit assessment, and recommendations for decision making [67]. Many elements of this formal safety assessment were established in other industries and sectors. However, they are adapted for application in the shipping industry, covering the risks to people, the marine environment, and property resulting from ship operations and other related activities. In Malaysia, there is no specific risk assessment guideline and framework in the port industry as of now. The only applicable risk assessment guideline available is the hazard identification, risk assessment, and risk control (HIRARC), guideline, 2008 which provides general guidelines for any industry in implementing risk assessment systems. Even though the guideline is considered sufficient, as a proactive measure, it is essential for specific risk assessment frameworks and guidelines of port authorities to be established in Malaysia as a leading step towards preventing accidents and managing safety in the port industry. The specific guidelines and codes of practice which provide risk assessment frameworks are believed to be motivating and helpful to the ports in handling and managing the risks of the industry. The operational level of port terminals is characterized by huge infrastructure, critical resources, and limited and rapidly changing traffic. This complex situation has led to many points of failure at several levels such as administrative activities, operations management, incident management, facilities management, and infrastructure management. Such problems require a particular methodology to identify and assess operational risks to establish preventive measures at port terminals [68]. The standard risk management is able to provide guidance in handling and managing the risks by identifying unacceptable risks and its impact [69]. Thus, the ports require a proper and structured risk management system to handle risks. The selected frameworks and guidelines are produced to suit the needs of the industry, institution, or organization. Most risk management standards share similar components and the same process, but with enhanced criteria to best suit each risk management component and application. Most of the ports in the world do not stick to only one standard or guideline, but rather, they choose the guideline or standard that best suits their organization’s objective. However, not all standards or guidelines are applicable to all industries. Table 3 provides a comparison of a framework’s application, objectives, and the type of document. Based on the comparison made as Table 4, it was found that risk identification, risk analysis, risk evaluation, and risk control are the main components of a risk management system because most of the standards, frameworks and guidelines have these as their main components. Table 5 describes the advantages and limitations of the frameworks accordingly.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

823
823

editor@iaeme.com

Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty Amrin

Table 3 Comparison of selected framework’s application, main objectives, and type of documents

Standards /Framework/ Guidelines

 

Main

 

Applicable to

Objectives

Type of Document

ILO Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems [46]

 

Compliance

 

All industries

and control

Guidance Document

Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSAS

All industries

Organization

Primary standard

18001)[39]

ISO 31000: 2009 ‘Risk management- Principles and

All industries

Organization

Primary standard

guidelines[37]

International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2001- Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) [40]

Maritime and shipping industry, sea transport industry

Regulation

Legal Document

Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (Act 514)- Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control (HIRARC), 2008[38]

 

Compliance

 

All industries

and Control

Guidance Document

DNV (2011)-Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) technique [47]

Maritime and shipping industry, sea transport industry

Compliance

 

and Control

Guidance Document

Marine Accident Risk Calculation System (MARCS), 2000

Maritime and shipping industry, sea transport industry

Compliance

 

and Control

Guidance Document

Risk-Based Decision-Making (RBDM) Guidelines U.S. Coast Guard (USCG 2001)

Maritime and shipping industry, sea transport industry

Compliance

 

and Control

Guidance Document

QRA and Risk-Effect Model

Maritime and shipping industry, sea transport industry

Compliance

Guidance Document

(REM)[50]

and Control

Table 4 Main Components of Risk Management Risk Training Establish the Risk Risk Risk Risk
Table 4 Main Components of Risk Management
Risk
Training
Establish the
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
Cost Benefit
Monitoring and
and
context
Identification
Analysis
Evaluation
Control
Communication
Analysis
Review
Awareness
AS/NZ ISO 31000 : 2009 ‘Risk
management-Principles and
guidelines
International Maritime Organization
(IMO) 2001- Formal Safety
Assessment (FSA)
Occupational Safety and Health Act
1994 (Act 514)- Hazard
Identification, Risk Assessment and
Risk Control (HIRARC), 2008
DNV, Quantitative Risk
Assessment (QRA) technique, 2011
QRA and Risk-Effect Model
(REM), 2011
Ireland Code of Practice for Health
and Safety in Dock Work, 2016
New Zealand Port and Harbour
Marine Safety Code, 2015
Port Marine Safety Management
Guidelines for Australian Ports (the
Guidelines), 2016

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

824
824

editor@iaeme.com

Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

Table 5 Advantages and limitation of frameworks

Standards

   

/Framework/

Advantages

Limitation

Guidelines

ILO Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems

Compatible with other management systems, standards and guidelines (ILO

Not legally binding and does not replace national laws, regulations, and accepted standards.

2001).

[46]

Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSAS 18001)[39]

Promotes organized occupational safety and health management in stressing the risk assessment element as part of the main components of the standard. Promotes continuous improvement.

The system is too general in its application on ports. However, it is still one of the best practices to be followed.

AS/NZ ISO 31000:

Details stress on risk assessment process and techniques. Promotes involvement from the top to the bottom of the organization. Promotes continuous improvement

 

2009 ‘Risk

The guideline is too general in its application on ports. However, it is still one of the best practices to be followed.

management-

Principles and

guidelines [37]

International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2001- Formal Safety Assessment (FSA)

Recognizes that there are several different interests involved in shipping, such as ship owners, cargo owners, third parties, passengers, crews, flag states, port states, insurers, class societies, associations, etc. Includes the identification of shipping interests and consideration on the impact of regulatory options for the relevant shipping interests. Numerous techniques are provided to facilitate the process.

Highly generic framework that is not intended for application in all circumstances (IMO 2002). Not readily applicable to risk analysis in the maritime transportation of dangerous goods, including packaged dangerous goods. Lacks the essential concepts or variables for representing and measuring the maritime transportation system of dangerous goods and risks associated with it. Does not contain a single term describing essential concepts related to risks of dangerous goods.

[40]

Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (Act 514)- Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control (HIRARC),

Easy and simple guideline to be followed.

The application is too general, especially for large organizations that require deeper assessments.

2008[38]

DNV (2011)- Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) technique [47]

Confined to the risks of major accidents affecting people ashore in bulk shipment of dangerous cargoes, including crude oil, flammable and toxic liquefied gases, flammable liquid petroleum products, flammable liquid chemicals, and ammonium nitrate (i.e. dry bulk cargoes).

Limited to risks of the maritime transport of large amounts of different types of dangerous goods carried in packaged form, injuries and other health risks, and the marine environment risks.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

825
825

editor@iaeme.com

Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty Amrin

Standards

   

/Framework/

Advantages

Limitation

Guidelines

Marine Accident Risk Calculation System (MARCS), 2000

The model enables the assessment of each set of the risk control options within a single framework.

Limited to analyzing historical and accidents data only. Thus, there are possibilities of data insufficiency.

Risk-Based Decision- Making (RBDM) Guidelines U.S. Coast Guard (USCG 2001)

Reliable and suitable risk assessment tools are provided in the guidelines. Focused on port and waterway areas.

Not legally binding and does not replace national laws, regulations, and accepted standards.

QRA and Risk-Effect Model (REM)[50]

Able to provide specific risk criteria and calculation of individual and societal risks while considering aspects such as volume of transport, substances transported, and population data along transport routes, and weather effects. Focused on Netherland’s transportation such as port, train and etc.

Not legally binding and does not replace national laws, regulations, and accepted standards.

8. RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, GUIDELINES, AND FRAMEWORKS

One of the major components in port risk management standards is risk assessment. During the last three decades, risk assessment has emerged as an essential and systematic tool that plays a relevant role in the overall management of many aspects of our life [26]. Analysis techniques are applied in many different areas for different purposes [27]. Risk assessment is generally defined as the process of identification and evaluation of risks or hazards [28]. A basic risk assessment comprises of five (5) basic steps [68], as illustrated in Figure 2 below:

1. Identification of risks. In this step, risk factors, the triggering events, their causes and each risk’s potential consequences will be identified.

2. Risk analysis. In this step, the nature and level of risk will be qualitatively or quantitatively analyzed. Then, risk analysis will provide a picture of the causes and consequences and aims to describe the risk.

3. Action Plan. In this step, preventive and corrective action will be planned and scheduled based on the risk level and priority.

4. Monitoring and implementation of action plans.

5. Effective monitoring of measures taken via mechanisms of prevention and protection. 1. Identify 2.
5. Effective monitoring of measures taken via mechanisms of prevention and protection.
1. Identify
2. Analyze
3. Planning
4.Follow up
5. Control

Figure 2 Risk Assessment Process

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

826
826

editor@iaeme.com

Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

The risk assessment process starts with the identification of the activity, its risks, and its hazards. After the hazards and risks have been identified, it is necessary for the risks and hazards to be analyzed [70]. There are two mains technique categories in risk analysis. It can either be analyzed qualitatively or quantitatively. In the past few decades, qualitative techniques have been widely used in many applications. As modernization occurs, more advanced mathematical techniques have been derived. Both techniques have its own advantages and disadvantages. However, the main objective is to provide the best solution for risk analysis. Recently, many studies focused on the integration of both methodologies to gain a solid and acceptable solution in analyzing risks [20]. This effort simultaneously supplements to current knowledge on risk management of such systems, advanced risk management models, and general guidelines on the improvement of current frameworks and procedures. Motivated by this tremendous effort, this study was undertaken to take a leading step in designing interrelated frameworks related to these three main components and evaluate their effectiveness and implementation, which would be beneficial to system theories and indirectly, to the industry. As mentioned earlier, risks have many categories. Some examples are financial risks, business risks, compliance risks, and operational risks. The most popular forms of risks are financial risk, investment risk, project or multi-project risk, operational risks such as in operations involving petrochemical & natural gases, information technology risk, market price and cost risk, quality risk such as in pharmaceutical drugs, human resources risk, institutional risk, environmental risk, security risk, and occupational health & safety risk. In a qualitative approach, the risk factor is identified and its impact and likelihood are assessed. Common qualitative techniques are risk matrix techniques, such as those being enforced by the Malaysian Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) in their guidelines, and the Guidelines for Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment, and Risk Control (HIRARC), 2005. This method classifies and categorizes the risk based on its risk level (usually high, medium, or low). The risk control or control measures shall take place based on the urgency of the risk level. Other examples of qualitative risk assessment include failure mode effect analysis, which is a technique focused on the impact of the failure, which is found by multiplying the severity, detection, and occurrence to gain a risk priority number. This is one of the famous qualitative risk analysis techniques that were used back then, especially in high-risk analysis. The advantages of qualitative techniques are it is applicable, it is able to identify the priority and urgency of the risk, and its simple approach is easily understood. These techniques usually required experience or an expert team in making decisions based on the risk severity and likelihood, which can lead to disadvantages such as human bias or misjudgment. Many studies conducted have overcome the bias problem by suggesting a team approach in conducting risk assessments, but this approach does not reduce the amount of subjectivity present in the process. Besides, the technique also contributes to subjectivity, as every task or activity varies in location, industry, organization, and many more aspects. Meanwhile, the quantitative approach requires a systematic framework or model that can quantify the likelihood of the risk. These techniques are using mathematics to calculate the probability of risk. Techniques such as the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) have become increasingly popular. With these techniques, complex systems and operational situations, the increase of data and information, the increase in safety and environment concerns, and advanced technology have become some of the factors that have created the need for a systematic, rigid, transparent, and quantitative risk assessment. The major advantages of quantifying the risks are that they provide an adequate understanding of failure, consequences and events, which are difficult to explain from a qualitative approach. In addition, it is easy to understand the overall process, reach the appropriate decisions, and allocate resources based

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

827
827

editor@iaeme.com

Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty Amrin

on quantitative data rather than qualitative opinions. The quantitative techniques are compliments to qualitative techniques. As time has passed, many frameworks were established by researchers in combining the two methods in managing risks. The objectives of this combination are to close the gap of disadvantages of both methods. Many improvements in managing risks have been made by researchers. However, there are also a few researchers still using only one of the methods to prove the effectiveness of their theory. Most of them are still acceptable; however, there will be some limitations. The key objectives of managing risk are to prevent accidents from happening. Advanced risk assessments that combines qualitative and quantitative methods, such as Fuzzy failure mode effect analysis, is very popular these days. Improved risk assessment techniques were established by researchers by combining the two methods of qualitative and quantitative analysis in managing risk. Thus, the terms “fuzzy failure mode effect analysis” [71], fuzzy Bayesian model [52], and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process [29] were introduced. Francesco Castaldo [78] presented a framework based on Bayesian networks for the surveillance of public transportation sites. The analysis of behaviors and interactions allow a reduced but exhaustive picture of the state of the observed scenarios. The system could represent a useful support for human operators in charge of large and crowded areas such as ports, canals, or airports, where often, a single person must check many monitors and indicators related to the same area at the same time. Goerlandt and Kujala [73] also used quantitative risk techniques. They analyzed the reliability of quantitative risk analysis through a case study of ship–ship collision risk analysis for a given seaport area. It was found that the probability and indicator-based risk perspectives do not necessarily provide the same risk picture when the analysis is repeated. It varies with the factor and input respectively. An example of another technique is the Analytical Hierarchal Process. It is a structured multi-attribute decision method. This technique was used to facilitate decisions made under risky or uncertain situations. The main advantage of the Analytical Hierarchal Process is its capability to check and reduce the inconsistency of expert judgments. While reducing bias in the decision-making process, this method provides group decision-making through a consensus using the geometric mean of the individual judgments. The Analytical Hierarchal Process derives scales of values from pairwise comparisons in conjunction with ratings and is suitable for multi-objective, multi-criteria, and multi-actor decisions with any number of alternatives. Mabrouki et al. [68] used this technique to describe the problem of operational risk management within the RO–RO activity at port terminals, which is a real application of the multi-criteria approach and a critical analysis method. He implemented three steps, where the first step is to define and identify the risk factors via the brainstorming approach. In this stage, we can define a list of major risks. The second step aims to describe the risks quantitatively to determine the level and the nature of the risks using an analysis. Finally, the development of criteria and their weighting, where the most probable risks are assessed under the analytical hierarchal analysis method. This study proposed a strong tool for the decision makers to prepare preventive action plans for the most critical risks. The objectives of this combination are to close the gap of disadvantages of both qualitative and quantitative methods. However, there are a few researchers still using only one of the methods to prove the effectiveness of their theory. Most of them are still acceptable; however, there will be some limitations. Even when comparing the qualitative and quantitative methods, in the complex and rapid development of the port industry, the semi-quantitative risk analysis still seems to be the more realistic approach. The semi-quantitative risk assessment approach provides an intermediate level between the textual evaluation of qualitative risk assessment and the numerical evaluation of quantitative risk assessment by evaluating risks with a score. The semi-

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

828
828

editor@iaeme.com

Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

quantitative method is more frequently used in estimating risks than the quantitative method [70]. The advantages of a semi-quantitative risk assessment are that this method is the most useful for providing a structured way to rank risks (according to their probability and impact) and for ranking the effectiveness of risk-reduction actions. This is achieved through a predefined scoring system that allows one to place perceived risks into categories, where there is a logical and explicit hierarchy between them. Semi-quantitative risk assessment offers the advantage of being able to evaluate a larger number of risk issues than quantitative risk assessment because a full mathematical model is unnecessary, especially in the port industry. The semi-quantitative risk assessment approach provides an intermediate level between the textual evaluation of qualitative risk assessment and the numerical evaluation of quantitative risk assessment by evaluating risks with a score. The analysis is more easily practiced. It has been argued that the semi-quantitative method is more frequently used in estimating risks than the quantitative method [70]. Semi-quantitative risk assessment is most useful for providing a structured way to rank risks according to their probability and impact and for ranking the effectiveness of risk-reduction actions. This is achieved through a predefined scoring system that allows one to place perceived risks into categories, where there is a logical and explicit hierarchy between them. Semi-quantitative risk assessment offers the advantage of being able to evaluate a larger number of risk issues than quantitative risk assessment because a full mathematical model is unnecessary. The classic risk matrix approach uses the multiplication of severity and likelihood to produce a risk rating, where the risk category is then decided based on the risk rating [12]. Based on the risk assessment, the organization will be able to identify and evaluate the risk based on whether the risk is in the high or low category. This will be able to help the organization focus on the most significant risks to be handled and consider the suitable risk measure to be put in place. Many researchers have been employed and proved the semi-quantitative risk assessment techniques in their study to be effective, as in Table 6. Wijeratne et al. [74] used risk matrices with two dimensions namely, the frequency of occurrence of an accident and the severity of its consequences. Semi-quantitative analysis is the most preferred technique of stating risks in the industry [74]. The simplified yet structured technique is easily implemented and adopted. The risk calculator and the semi-quantitative risk rating matrix can be identified as the most preferred methods for risk analysis [70]. The techniques are also easy to understand and communicate. It is an advantage to apply this technique in such complex scenarios. The risk matrix model is able to assess placement of risk levels in terms of risk analysis and evaluation. The risk matrix model can help risk managers to develop highly efficient risk management strategies across multiple risk levels in accordance with various risk factors, which lessens loss occurrence rates and thereby reduce corporate financial impact [14]. The simplicity of semi-quantitative techniques enables it to be implemented and conducted in many industries. The risk matrix model can assess placement of risk levels in terms of risk analysis and evaluation. The simplicity of semi-quantitative techniques helps it be implemented and conducted by many industries From Malaysian legislation perspectives, the employer’s responsibility in managing occupational safety and health in the workplace is stressed. It believes that the responsibility of the safety of an organization lies in the employer, as the exposure to hazards and risks were created by them. Thus, most of the world’s organization has implemented risk management systems not only in safety but also in their business overview to manage the risks within their company. Risk matrix techniques have been applied and enforced by the Malaysian Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) in their guidelines, which is the Guidelines for Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control (HIRARC), 2005.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

829
829

editor@iaeme.com

Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty Amrin

This method classified and categorized the risks based on risk level, which categories are usually named high, medium, and low. The risk control or control measure shall take place based on the priority and urgency of the risk level. Other examples of qualitative risk assessment are failure mode effect analysis. This technique focuses on failure impact by multiplying the severity, detection, and occurrence to obtain a risk priority number. This is one of the famous qualitative risk analysis techniques used back then, especially in high-risk analysis. The advantages of qualitative techniques are that it is easier to be conducted, it is able to identify the priority and urgency of risks, and it is easily understood, as it is a simple approach. These techniques usually require experience or an expert team in making decisions on the risk severity and likelihood, which lead to disadvantages caused by human bias or misjudgment. Many studies conducted have overcome the bias problem by suggesting a team approach in conducting risk assessments, but still, these approaches do not necessarily reduce the amount of subjectivity present in the process [68]. Besides, the technique also contributes to subjectivity as every task or activities varies according to location, industry, organization, and many more aspects. Meanwhile, the quantitative approach requires a systematic framework or model that can quantify the likelihood of the risk. These techniques use mathematics to calculate the probability of risks. The major advantage of quantifying the risks is that it provides an adequate understanding of failure, consequences, and events, which are difficult to explain by a qualitative approach. In addition, it is easy to understand the overall process, reach the appropriate decision, and allocate resources based on quantitative data rather than qualitative opinions. The quantitative techniques compliment qualitative techniques.

Table 6 List of studies with research assessment techniques

No.

Author, year

Location

Methodology

Techniques

Data

1

Pak, J. Y. et al.,

Korea port

Fuzzy AHP

Qualitative

Questionnaire

2015[29]

Questionnaire

     

Accident data

   

2

Zhang et al.,

2016[52]

Tianjin port

analysis Bayesian

Belief Networks

Qualitative and

Quantitative

Accident data

3

Mokhtari, K. et al.,

Iranian Port

Fuzzy set theory (FST) Case Study sensitivity analysis

Qualitative and

Case study

2012

[72]

Quantitative

4

Mabrouki, C. et al.

RO-RO port

AHP method

Qualitative

Statistical data

2014

[68]

activity

 

Vidmar, P.and

       

5

Perkovic. M., 2015

[64]

Port cruise

Formal Safety

Assessment

Qualitative

Statistical data

 

Abdelhakim

       

6

Bouzaher et al.,

2015[13]

Algerian port

Formal Safety

assessment

Qualitative

Accident data

7

Montewka, J. et al., 2014 [57]

Port

Formal Safety

Qualitative

Case study

Assessment

8

Lu, C.S and Kuo, S.Y., 2016 [30]

Port

hierarchical regression analysis

Qualitative and

historical

Quantitative

statistical data

 

Preben H. L. &

       

9

Kringen, J,

Port

Case study

Qualitative

Audit

2015[53]

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

830
830

editor@iaeme.com

Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

10

Wang et al., 2016

Port

Statistical data

Qualitative

Historical data

[75]

11

Wen-Kai K. Hsu,

Port

AHP and Fuzzy

Qualitative and

Historical data

2012[76]

Quantitative

12

Lei, 2015[77]

Port

Case study

Quantitative

Case study

13

Castaldo,F.

Port

Topological map;

Qualitative and

Experiment

2016[78]

Bayesian model

Quantitative

14

Perkovic, et al.,

Port-LNG

Statistics

Qualitative

AIS data

2012

[79]

operation

15

Yang et. al.,

Port

DEMATEL Method, cause and effect diagram

Qualitative and

Questionnaire,

2014[80]

Quantitative

interview

 

Abderrahmane et

       

17

al.,2016 [81]

Port

Statistics

Qualitative

Historical data

18

Antão, P. et al.2015 [58]

Port

Key Performance

Qualitative

Sampling

Indicator

19

Esma Gül Emecen Kara, 2016 [82]

Port

Mathematics

Quantitative

Sampling

20

Akyuz et al., 2016

Port

Fuzzy Failure Mode Effect Analysis

Qualitative and

Historical data

[71]

Quantitative

 

Adam, E. F. et al.,

       

21

2014[19]

Port

Statistical

Qualitative

Historical data

22

Fabiano, B. et al.,

Port

Statistical

Qualitative

Historical data

2010

[15]

9. EXPERT JUDGEMENT IN RISK ASSESSMENT

During the past recent years, risk assessment has been investigated by many researchers using and relying on expert’s judgements. For example, Akyuz et al. [71] used fuzzy Failure mode effect analysis and supported it with a rule-based expert system, which systematically reconsiders potential failure modes and effects at the system level. Therefore, the proposed approach transforms its database into a risk priority number (RPN) of system failures. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a qualitative, systematic, and highly structured technique that is used to investigate the way a system or system components can result in performance problems. In 2012, Mokhtari et al. [72] proposed the fuzzy set theory using a proposed generic risk evaluation model. First, risks levels of the 22 individual risk factors for three Iranian ports were evaluated by using the Fuzzy Set Theory based on expert’s judgment. The evolutions for three Iranian ports were synthesized by using evidence and reason to derive the belief degrees of the same risk factors for the mentioned ports. In the last part, by feeding the relative weights available from an illustrative example, along with the belief degrees calculated through the proposed methodology using computer software, the overall scores of the three nominated ports were calculated. By using an expert’s opinion, eventually, the proposed methodology and model in the form of decision support can be implemented on any specific port during the risk management cycle, auditing, port-to-port risk evaluations, etc. They proposed that the methodology can help the port and terminal managers and professionals. For example, port risk managers and port auditors can take corrective and preventive actions at early stages of risks to defeat a variety of problems. Chlomoudis et al. [12] collected the feedback from port experts and grouped the hazards into five group of risk categories based on accident factor causes.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

831
831

editor@iaeme.com

Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty Amrin

Both qualitative and quantitative techniques usually require experience or an expert team in making the decisions. In qualitative techniques, the expert’s judgement is often critical in determining the risk’s severity and likelihood, which leads to disadvantages where it will contribute to bias or misjudgment of humans. The complexity of quantitative risk analysis might be easy for researchers, but Mou et al. [83] argued that implementation in the industry would have varied outcomes. In order to conduct a quantitative risk assessment, the assessor must be a statistics expert in calculating the risk using statistical mathematical methods. With the rapid change in the development of the industry, the industry might not be able to catch up. Many studies conducted overcame the bias problem by suggesting a team approach in conducting risk assessments, but these approaches do not necessarily reduce the amount of subjectivity present in the process. In 2016, Kontogiannis et al. [42] argued that the risk assessment should require full involvement from many parties, such as safety practitioners, managers, supervisors, and technicians. In most cases, a risk assessment is performed on how jobs should be performed, rather than on how they are performed in practice. Thus, critical alterations or abuse of procedures are missed in this analysis. This can be avoided by conducting a participative risk assessment that would involve people on all organizational levels in certain stages of the analysis. It engages all levels at the organization, which serves as an advantage. Another advantage of this approach would be that the workforce is encouraged to monitor emerging hazards and report them, which can update and improve the results of the earlier analysis. Finally, it would be easier to design safety measures and barriers that are compatible with the competencies and preferences of workers when they are part of that process, hence enabling a more efficient human-system interaction. The assessment of these risks is an opportunity to initiate prevention measures to preserve port facilities, property, marine environments, and the safety of the people at work.

10. CONTROL MEASURES: AS LOW AS REASONABLY APPLICABLE (ALARP)

The control measure assessment of risks is essential in managing risk [86]. Risk tolerance plays a critical role in risk management [75]. The risk control and safety enhancement process concentrate on prioritized issues [69]. A control measure is part of a facility, including any system, procedure, process, or device that intends to eliminate hazards, prevent hazardous incidents from occurring, or reduces the severity of consequences of any incident that does occur [83]. Control measures may be proactive, in that they eliminate, prevent, or reduce the likelihood of incidents, or they may be reactive, in that they reduce the consequences of incidents. Moreover, all risk is advised to be controlled under the ALARP (As Low as Reasonably Practicable) principle [84], where once a level has been established for the risk estimated, the levels are compared with previously established risk criteria to create a prioritized list of risks to be controlled. The last step in risk assessment is risk control. In traditional risk assessment, the risk control measure is decided based on the risk rating and risk level after the risk is analyzed. When combined with an assessment of the severity of the impact of a hazardous scenario, the risk of the scenario can be calculated. However, neither likelihood nor impact severity alone can determine risk. Risk is the product of likelihood and impact severity (consequence). Unfortunately, an absolute value of risk is of little use [85]. It can be used to compare risks of different hazards, but it cannot be used to decide if the risk is too high or low enough to be tolerated. It is only when compared to risk tolerance criteria that a decision can be made on whether the risk of a hazard is too high, or if it is low enough to be tolerated. Risk levels are unable to translate whether the conditions of a risk is acceptable or not. It is difficult to ascertain to what extent risk can be reduced by such

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

832
832

editor@iaeme.com

Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

measures [56]. It is also the case that there are factors that cannot be controlled. Therefore, even if the likelihood of accidents is brought down, from time to time they will happen regardless. Studies suggest that the identification of strategies for accident reduction (that can be made with the analysis of the proposed controls) was also contained in the risk assessment methodology [12]. Other researchers assessed the control measures assessment of risks arising from human factors in a previous research [86]. In the context of occupational health and safety, risk control is categorized according to hierarchy, often simply called the “risk control hierarchy.” This hierarchy helps people to decide which risk control to implement. Risk control options at the top of the hierarchy are more preferred than those at the bottom of the hierarchy. The preferred options are the most effective means of controlling risks because they are much less reliant on people’s actions and they can protect a larger number of people. Therefore, control measures should be considered and adopted in the order presented. The evaluating stage of the risk assessment process involves assessing team decisions on the most appropriate risk control strategy. The controllability of a risk is also important in the attribution of risks. When it is perceived that a risk cannot be controlled, a fatalistic resignation to the exposure to the risk may develop. Once a level has been established for the risk estimated, the levels are compared with previously established risk criteria to create a prioritized list of risks to be controlled. It may become an important task to identify and select the relevant risk criteria for specifically estimated risks in a specific country and industry. In 2014, Yang et al. [78] agreed that risk criteria depend on the results of the risk analysis and how risks are estimated. Poor management and control of risks and hazard can also be a cause of accidents. The organizations that are unable to manage and control risks and hazards in the workplace tend to fail in managing accidents. Thus, the ideal solution for the reduction of accidents and to implement effective occupational safety and health management is to manage and control the risks of the hazards. This statement was agreed by Amyotte et al. [16], which found seven core concepts in preventing major accidents in processing industries, and one of it is dynamic operational risk management. Many studies show the significance of risk management study an effective risk management can decrease or at least minimize the number of accidents .The risk assessment system can be considered as the leading indicator of safety. Thus, it is essential for risk to be managed and controlled to reduce the accident rate. The implementation and effectiveness of the risk assessment need an effort from the top to the bottom of the organization. It would not be successful if there is no cooperation within the organization.

11. CONCLUSION

Risk analysis or risk assessment, which are part of a risk management system and other elements of a risk management system involves a systematic but laborious scientific process that is usually smoothed by frameworks or techniques. In this paper, many different frameworks and guidelines related to port risk safety were discussed and reviewed. The comparisons, advantages, and limitations were discussed and summarized. It is important for an organization to make the right choices, for it is an important step in risk analysis/ assessment. In the application of port risk safety management systems, especially in Malaysian ports, there is still uncertainty regarding the availability of a standardized format that has the capability to serve all types of systems and risks. However, the current frameworks are being updated and reviewed from time to time to suit the current state of development. It is recommended that future studies be conducted to review and investigate the factors affecting the choices of an organization in port safety management, including the resources available, data and information available, system and/or risk elements to be studied,

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

833
833

editor@iaeme.com

Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty Amrin

legal and/or decision maker requirements, risk issues, and concerns. Studies on risk assessment methodology types such as qualitative, quantitative, initial or preliminary study methodologies may also be explored.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express the utmost appreciation and gratitude to the Ministry of Higher Education, MyBrain15 MyPhD Ministry of Higher Education, UTM Razak School of Engineering & Advanced Technology and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for all the support given in making the study a success. VOTE UTM: Q.K130000.2540.17H87.

REFERENCES

[1]

Abdullah, M. S., Othman, Y., Osman, A., & Salahudin, S. N. (2016). Safety culture

[2]

behaviour in electronics manufacturing sector (EMS) in Malaysia: The case of Flextronics. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 454 – 461. Amin, Z., Mohammad, R., Abdul Aziz, S., & Othman, N. (2015). Workers’ safety

[3]

awareness level on hand related injury accident in metal fabrication industry. Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, 1(1), 1-12. Chong, H. Y., & Lowa, T. S. (2014). Accidents in Malaysian construction industry:

Statistical data and court cases. Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 20(3),

503-513.

[4]

Shamsuddin, K. A., Che Ani, M. N., & Osman, M. H. (2014). Developing accident

[5]

avoidance program for occupational safety and health. The International Journal of Engineering and Science, 3(10), 62-68. Hee, O. E. (2014). Factors contribute to safety culture in the manufacturing industry in

[6]

Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(4), 63-69. Auyong, H., Zailani, S., & Surienty, L. (2011). Safety and health management in logistics:

literature review and future research. Journal of System and Management Sciences, 1 (3),

9-20.

[7]

Kumar, R., Chelliah, T.D., Chelliah, M. K., & Amin, A. F. M. (2012). An analysis on

1999-2006.

[8]

safety work culture in Malaysian manufacturing industry. BIOINFO Business Management, 2 (1), 11-15. Said, S. M., Said, F., & Halim, Z. A. (2012). The determinants of industrial accidents in

the Malaysian manufacturing sector. African Journal of Business Management, 6(5),

[9]

Gnoni, M. G., & Saleh, J. H. (2013). Near-miss management systems and observability-

[10]

in-depth: Handling safety incidents and accident precursors in light of safety principles Safety Science, 91,154–167. Zhao, B. (2016). Facts and lessons related to the explosion accident in Tianjin Port, China.

[11]

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, 84, 707-713. Ng, C. A., Berg, M. B., Jude, D. J., Janssen, J., Charlebois, P.M., Amaral, L. A. N., &

[12]

Ray, K. A.(2008). Chemical amplification in an invaded food web: seasonality and ontogeny in a high-biomass, low-diversity ecosystem. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 27, 10, 2186–2195. Chlomoudis, C. I., Kostagiolas, P. A., & Pallis, L. P. (2012). An Analysis for Formal Risk

[13]

and Safety Assessments for Ports: Empirical Evidence from Container Terminals in Greece, Journal of Shipping and Ocean Engineering 2(1): 45-54. Constantinos, I., Chlomoudis, P. L., & Pallis, E. S. T. (2016). Port risk assessment methodology for human accidents in container terminals: evidence from the port of

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

834
834

editor@iaeme.com

Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

Piraeus – Greece. International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering, 6(4), 368 –

377.

[14]

Bouzaher, A., Bahmed, L., Furusho, M. & Fedila, M. (2015). Designing a risk assessment matrix for Algerian Port operations. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, 15 (6),

860-867.

[15]

Ding, J.F. and Tseng, W.J. (2013). Fuzzy risk assessment on safety operations for exclusive container terminals at Kaohsiung port in Taiwan. Proceeding IMechE, Part M:

[16]

Journal Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 227(2), 208–220. Fabiano, B., Currò, F., Reverberi, A.P., & Pastorino, R. (2010). Port safety and the

126–135.

[17]

container revolution: A statistical study on human factor and occupational accidents over the long period. Safety Science, 48(8), 980-990. Amyotte, P. R., Berger, S., Edwards, D. W., Gupta, J.P., Hendershot, D. C., Khan, F.,

[18]

Mannan, M.S & Willey, R. J. (2016). Why major accidents are still occurring. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, 14, 1–8. Inan, U. H., Gül, S., & Yılmaz., A. (2017). A multiple attribute decision model to

[19]

compare the firms’ occupational health and safety management perspectives. Safety Science, 91, 221–231. Adam, E.F., Brown, S., & Nicholls, R.J. (2016). A systematic assessment of maritime

[20]

disruptions affecting UK ports, coastal areas and surrounding seas from 1950 to 2014. Natural Hazards, 83, 691-703. Akyildiz, H. & Mentes, A. (2017). An integrated risk assessment based on uncertainty

[21]

analysis for cargo vessel safety. Safety science, 42, 34-43. Emovon, I., Norman, R. A, Murphy, A. J., & Pazouki, K. (2015). An integrated multi

[22]

criteria decision making methodology using compromise solution methods for prioritising risk of marine machinery systems. Ocean Engineering, 105, 92–103. Bhandari, J., Abbassi, R., Garaniya, V., & Khan, F. (015). Risk analysis of deep-water

[23]

drilling operations using Bayesian network. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 38, 11-23. Thekdi, S., & Aven, T. (2016). An enhanced data-analytic framework for integrating risk

[24]

management and performance management. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 156, 277–287. Tian, B., Gao, W., & Wang, Q. (2014). Studies on ships collision avoidance with SAPSO

[25]

arithmetic. Advanced Materials Research, 971-973, 1338-1342. Karahalios, H. (2014). The contribution of risk management in ship management: The

[26]

case of ship collision. Safety Science, 63, 104–114. Villa, V., Nicola Paltrinieri, N., Khan, F., & Cozzani, V. (2016). Towards dynamic risk

[27]

analysis: A review of the risk assessment approach and its limitations in the chemical process industry. Safety Science, 89, 77–93. Inanloo, B., Tansel, B., Shams, K., Jin, X., & Gan, A. (2016). A decision aid GIS-based

[28]

risk assessment and vulnerability analysis approach for transportation and pipeline networks. Safety Science, 84, 57–66. Bolat, P., & Yong, X. J. (2013). Risk assessment of potential catastrophic accidents for

transportation of special nuclear materials through Turkish Straits. Energy Policy, 56,

[29]

Pak, J. Y., Yeo, G.T., Oh, S. W., & Yang, Z. (2015). Port safety evaluation from a

[30]

captain’s perspective: The Korean experience Safety Science, 72, 172–181. Lu, C.S., & Kuo, S.Y. (2016). The effect of job stress on self-reported safety behaviour in container terminal operations: The moderating role of emotional intelligence. Transportation Research Part F, 37, 10–26.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

835
835

editor@iaeme.com

Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty Amrin

[31]

Joo, S. H., Hong, S. C., & Kim, N. J. (2016). Comparative study on Korean and

Nakayama, J., Sakamoto, J., Kasai, N., Shibutani, T., & Miyake, A. (2016). Preliminary

[32]

international chemical control regulations of the physical hazards of sodium cyanide and hydrogen cyanide. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 44, 143-149. Sholihah, O., Hanafi, A.S., Bachri, A. A., & Fauzi, R. (2016). Ergonomics awareness as

[33]

efforts to increase knowledge and prevention of musculoskeletal disorders on fishermen. Aquatic Procedia, 7, 187-194. Veselinovic, S. P., Hedge, A., & Veselinovic, M. (2016). An ergonomic expert system for

[34]

risk assessment of work-related musculo-skeletal disorders. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 53, 130-139.

[35]

hazard identification for qualitative risk assessment on a hybrid gasoline-hydrogen fueling station with an on-site hydrogen production system using organic chemical hydride. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41(18), 7518-7525. Huda, N. Z., Norudin, M., & Zalinawati, A. (2016). Workplace accident in Malaysia: most

[36]

common causes and solutions. Business and Management Review, 2(5), 75 – 88. Yang, Y. L., Ding, J. F., Chiu, C. C., Shyu, W. H., Tseng, W. J., & Chou, M. T. (2016).

[37]

Core risk factors influencing safe handling operations for container terminals at Kaohsiung port. Journal Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 230(2), 444–453. AS/NZ ISO 31000: 2009 ‘Risk management- Principles and guidelines.

[38]

Department of Occupational Safety and Health Malaysia. Guidelines of Hazard

[39]

Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control (2005). International standard organization. Occupational Health and Safety Management System

[40]

(OHSAS 18001) 2015. Guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process

[41]

international maritime organization 2002, Available from: International Maritime organization. Lee, K.N., Kwon, H. M., Cho, S. S., Kim, J. Y., & Moon, I. (2016). Improvements of

[42]

safety management system in Korean chemical industry after a large chemical accident. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 42, 6-13. Kontogiannis, T., Leva, M. C., & Balfe, N. (2016). Total Safety Management: Principles,

[43]

processes and methods. Safety Science, 1, 1–5. Gerard I. J., Zwetsloot, M., Hale, H., & Zwanikken, S. (2011). Regulatory risk control

[44]

through mandatory occupational safety and health (OSH) certification and testing regimes (CTRs). Safety Science, 49, 995–1006. Lenhardt, U., & Beck, D. (2016). Prevalence and quality of workplace risk assessments –

[45]

Findings from a representative company survey in Germany. Safety Science, 48–56, 86. Kouabenan, D.R., Ngueutsa, R., & Mbaye, S. (2015). Safety climate, perceived risk, and

[46]

involvement in safety management. Safety Science, 77, 72–79. ILO Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems.

[47]

DNV (2011). Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) technique.

[48]

Marine Accident Risk Calculation System (MARCS) (2000).

[49]

Risk-Based Decision-Making (RBDM) Guidelines U.S. Coast Guard (USCG 2001).

[50]

Mullai, A. (2006). Risk Management System – Risk Assessment Frameworks and

[51]

Techniques. DaGoB publication. Khodabocus B. F., & K.C. Constant, K.C. (2010). Implementing OHSAS 18001:2007: - A Case Study of Hazard Analysis from the Printing Industry. International Journal of Engineering Research in Africa, 1, 17-27.

[52]

Zhang,

J.,

Teixeira,

A.P.,

Soares,

C.

G.,

Yan,

X.

and

Liu, K.

(2016). Maritime

transportation risk assessment of Tianjin port with Bayesian belief networks, Risk Analysis, 1-10.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

836
836

editor@iaeme.com

Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

[53]

Preben, H. L., & Kringen, J. (2015). Risk governance of hazardous industrial ports and

142-157.

[54]

areas: a case study of industrial areas and harbors in Norway, Journal of Risk Research, 18:7, 931-946. Eleftheria, E., Apostolos, P., & Markos, V. (2016). Statistical analysis of ship accidents

[55]

and review of safety level. Safety Science, 85, 282–292. Le Duy, T. D., Vasseur, D., & Serdet, E. (2016). Probabilistic Safety Assessment of twin-

[56]

unit nuclear sites: Methodological elements. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 145, 250–261. Knudsen, O. F., & Hassler, B. (2011). IMO legislation and its implementation: Accident

[57]

risk, vessel deficiencies and national administrative practices. Marine Policy, 35, 201-207. Montewka, A., Ehlers, S., Goerlandt, F., Hinz, H., Tabri, K., and Kujala, P. (2014). A

framework for risk assessment for maritime transportation systems - A case study for open sea collisions involving RoPax vessels. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 124,

[58]

Antão, P., Calderón, M., Puig, M., Michail, A., Wooldridge, C. Darbraf, R. M (2016).

[59]

Identification of Occupational Health, Safety, Security (OHSS) and Environmental Performance Indicators in port areas. Safety Science, 85, 266-275. USA, the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC), March 2000. Revised 2009.

[60]

New Zealand Code 2016. New Zealand Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code (the Code).

[61]

Australia Code 2016. Port Marine Safety Management Guidelines for Australian Ports

[62]

(the Guidelines). Available from Australia Port Authority. UK Code, 2011. Port Marine Safety Code (the Code) UK. Available from UK.

[63]

Zaman, M.B., Santoso, A., Kobayashi, E., Wakabayashi, N. and Maimun, A. (2015).

[64]

Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for Analysis of Ship Collision Using AIS Data. International Journal of Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transport, 9, 67-72. Vidmar, P., & Perkovic, M. (2015). Methodological approach for safety assessment of

[65]

cruise ship in port. Safety Science, 80, 189–200. Wang, J. and Foinikis, P. (2010). Formal safety assessment of containership. Science

[66]

Direct, 143157. Haapasaari, P., Helle, I., Lehikoinen, A., Lappalainen, J., & Kuikka, S. (2015). A

[67]

proactive approach for maritime safety policy making for the Gulf of Finland: Seeking best practices. Marine Policy, 60, 107–118. Dong, Y., & Frangopol, D. M. (2015). Probabilistic ship collision risk and sustainability

[68]

assessment considering risk attitudes. Structural Safety, 53 (2015) 75–84. Mabrouki, Charif & Bentaleb, Fatimazahra & Mousrij, Ahmed. 2014. A decision support

[69]

methodology for risk management within a port terminal. Safety Science, 63. 124–132. Kumar, P., Gupta, S., Agarwal., M., & Singh, U. (2016) Categorization and

[70]

standardization of accidental risk-criticality levels of human error to develop risk and safety management policy. Safety Science, 85, 88–98. Jusoh, Z., Shattar, N.A., Majid, M. A. B., & Adenana, N. D. (2016). Determination of

[71]

hazard in captive hotel laundry using semi quantitative risk assessment matrix. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222, 915-922. Akyuz, E. (2016). A marine accident analysing model to evaluate potential operational

[72]

causes in cargo ships. Safety Science, 92, 17-25. Mokhtari, K., Ren, J., Roberts, C., & Wang, J. (2012). Decision support framework for

[73]

risk management on sea ports and terminals using fuzzy set theory and evidential reasoning approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 5087–5103. Goerlandt, F., & Reniers, G. (2016). On the assessment of uncertainty in risk diagrams. Safety Science, 84, 67–77.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

837
837

editor@iaeme.com

Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty Amrin

[74]

Wijeratne, W. M. P. U., Perera, B. A. K.S. and De Silva, L. (2014). Identification and

Schmidt, M. S. (2016). Making sense of risk tolerance criteria. Journal of Loss Prevention

[75]

assessment risks in maintenance operations. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 4, 384-405. Wang, R., Zheng, W., Liang, Ci., & Tang, T. (2016). An integrated hazard identification

[76]

method based on the hierarchical Colored Petri Net. Safety Science, 88, 166–179. Wen-Kai & Hsu, K. (2012). Ports’ service attributes for ship navigation safety. Safety

[77]

Science, 50, 244–252. Lei, D., Chang-shi, X., Yuan-qiao, W. and Le, W. (2015). Safe speed of ships passing

[78]

access channel of port. International Conference on Transportation Information and Safety, Wuhan, 623-627. Castaldo, F., Palmieri, F. A. N. and Regazzoni, C. S. (2016). Bayesian analysis of

[79]

behaviors and interactions for situation awareness in transportation systems. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 17(2), 313-322. Perkovic, M., Gucma, L., Przywarty, M., Gucma, M., Petelin, S., & Vidmar, P. Marko, P.

[80]

(2012). Nautical risk assessment for LNG operations at the port of Koper. Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 58, 10, 607-613. Yang, Y.L., Ding, J. F., Chiu, C.C., Shyu, W.H., Tseng, W. J. and Chou, M.T. (2014).

[81]

Core risk factors influencing safe handling operations for container terminals at Kaohsiung port. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 230 (2), 444 – 453. Abderrahmane Bouda Nour El Islam, Bachari Lylia & Bahmed Ryad Boubenia (2016).

[82]

Design of a risk assessment methodology for the introduction of invasive species from ship ballast waters: the case of Arzew port. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 27, 1-5. Emecen Kara, E.G. (2016). Risk Assessment in the Istanbul Strait Using Black Sea MOU

[83]

Port State Control Inspections. Sustainability, 8(4), 390. Mou, M.M., Tak, C.V.F. and Ligteringen, H. (2010). Study on collision avoidance in busy

[84]

waterways by using AIS data. Ocean Engineering, 37, 483-490. Shitel Thekdi, & Terje Aven (2016). An enhanced data-analytic framework for integrating

[85]

risk management and performance management. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 156, 277–287.

[86]

in the Process Industries, 41, 344-354. Amir-Heidari, P., Maknoon, R., Taheri, B., & Bazyari, M. (2016). Identification of

[87]

strategies to reduce accidents and losses in drilling industry by comprehensive HSE risk assessment-A case study in Iranian drilling industry, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 44, 405-413. S. Drissi, S. Benhadou and H. Medromi, An Autonomous Risk Assessment Model for

[88]

Cloud Computing Based on Multi-agent System before and after the Cloud Adoption. International Journal of Computer Engineering & Technology, 8(4), 2017, pp. 19–30. Dr. Nabaa Shakir Hadi, Potential Health Risk Assessment for Soil and Air Heavy Metal

[89]

Contamination in Baghdad City. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 236–251. G. Pavan Kumar and SS. Asadi and A.V.S. Prasad, The Effect of Earned Value Management on Risk Assessment Using Analytical Network Process: A Case Study. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(6), 2016, pp. 720–731.

[90] Samaraj S. Thiyagarajan, PMP, A Perspective of Risk Assessment for Product Developments in Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Products, International Journal of Management (IJM), Volume 5, Issue 7, July (2014), pp. 44-50

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp

838
838

editor@iaeme.com