| Literature DB >> 35270565 |
Abstract
Previous studies have found that the occurrence of maritime accidents often lacks a sound environment management mechanism. The reason is that maritime safety needs management functions to promote each other. This study aims to assess the risk analysis of maritime accidents, applying balanced scorecard (BSC) concepts integrating decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) with analytic network process (ANP). The empirical results are that the balanced scorecard could be applied as a maritime procedure management method in maritime risk analysis. A total of 30 questionnaires were collected via scholar questionnaire, and five criteria or key factors for strengthening risk assessment of marine accidents were determined. According to the application of BSC, the risk analysis criteria constructed can assist maritime authorities to reduce the maritime accidents.Entities:
Keywords: ANP; DEMATEL; balanced scorecard; maritime environment analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35270565 PMCID: PMC8910685 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052873
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Maritime accident assessment factors.
| Perspective | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Learning and Growth (A) | Internal Processes (B) | Seaworthiness (C) | Safety Report (D) |
| A1: Seafarer education | B1: Ability to respond to emergencies | C1: Voyage Seaworthiness | D1: Marine investigation |
| A2: Seafarer satisfaction | B2: Marine management efficiency enhancement | C2: Voyage equality | D2: Safety report |
| A3: Seafarer professional ability | B3: Training in environmental hygiene and cleaning operation | C3: Market share | D3: Recurrence rate of maritime accidents |
| A4: Seafarer resignation rate | B4: Accident information compilation | C4: Cargo owner relationship management | D4: Subsequent handling of maritime accidents |
| A5: Seafarer knowledge sharing | |||
Figure 1Rank of importance level.
Figure 2Causes of maritime accidents in Taiwan of 2013–2018 [34].
Total-influence matrix matrix T: four perspectives.
| Perspective | A | B | C | D | Row Sum (di) | Column Sum (ri) | di + ri | di − ri |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0.54 | 1.027 | 1.016 | 1.138 | 3.721 | 2.044 | 5.765 | 1.677 |
| B | 0.701 | 0.648 | 1.044 | 1.078 | 3.471 | 2.044 | 5.515 | 1.427 |
| C | 0.584 | 0.739 | 0.65 | 1.065 | 3.038 | 2.044 | 5.082 | 0.994 |
| D | 0.219 | 0.311 | 0.419 | 0.322 | 1.271 | 2.044 | 3.315 | −0.773 |
Footnote: A = learning and growth, B = internal processes, C = seaworthiness, D = safety report.
Sum of influences given and received on criteria.
| Perspective/Criteria | Row Sum (di) | Column Sum (ri) | di + ri | di − ri |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Learning and growth | 3.721 | 2.044 | 5.765 | 1.677 |
| A1. Seafarer education | 2.019 | 2.339 | 4.358 | −0.32 |
| A2. Seafarer satisfaction | 2.792 | 1.459 | 4.251 | 1.333 |
| A3. Seafarer professional ability | 2.387 | 2.192 | 4.579 | 0.195 |
| A4. Seafarer resignation rate | 1.653 | 2.206 | 3.859 | −0.553 |
| A5. Seafarer knowledge sharing | 1.852 | 1.306 | 3.158 | 0.546 |
| B. Internal processes | 3.471 | 2.044 | 5.515 | 1.427 |
| B1. Ability to respond to emergencies | 2.849 | 2.538 | 5.387 | 0.311 |
| B2. Marine management efficiency enhancement | 2.192 | 2.634 | 4.826 | −0.442 |
| B3. Training in environmental hygiene and cleaning operation | 1.987 | 1.211 | 3.198 | 0.776 |
| B4. Accident information compilation | 3.519 | 1.757 | 5.276 | 1.762 |
| C. Seaworthiness | 3.038 | 2.044 | 5.082 | 0.994 |
| C1. Voyage Seaworthiness | 2.391 | 1.904 | 4.295 | 0.487 |
| C2. Voyage equality | 2.159 | 2.364 | 4.523 | −0.205 |
| C3. Market share | 1.329 | 2.658 | 3.987 | −1.329 |
| C4. Cargo owner relationship management | 1.236 | 2.61 | 3.846 | −1.374 |
| D. Safety report | 1.271 | 2.044 | 3.315 | −0.773 |
| D1. Marine investigation | 1.203 | 1.283 | 2.486 | −0.08 |
| D2. Safety report | 1.194 | 1.204 | 2.398 | −0.01 |
| D3. Recurrence rate of maritime accidents | 1.389 | 1.152 | 2.541 | 0.237 |
| D4. Subsequent handling of maritime accidents | 1.853 | 1.666 | 3.519 | 0.187 |
Figure 3Causal diagram of total relationships. (a): Learning and growth criteria; (b): Internal processed criteria; (c): Seaworthiness criteria; (d): Safety Report criteria; di—dispatchers; ri—relationships.
Weights and ranking for the maritime accident risk factors.
| Perspective/Criteria | Local Weights | Global Weights | Ranks |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.357 | - | 1 |
| A1. Seafarer education | 0.206 | 0.074 | 5 |
| A2. Seafarer satisfaction | 0.215 | 0.077 | 3 |
| A3. Seafarer professional ability | 0.243 | 0.087 | 1 |
| A4. Seafarer resignation rate | 0.191 | 0.068 | 7 |
| A5. Seafarer knowledge sharing | 0.145 | 0.052 | 13 |
|
| 0.283 | - | 2 |
| B1. Ability to respond to emergencies | 0.275 | 0.078 | 2 |
| B2. Marine management efficiency enhancement | 0.243 | 0.069 | 6 |
| B3. Training in environmental hygiene and cleaning operation | 0.215 | 0.061 | 9 |
| B4. Accident information compilation | 0.267 | 0.076 | 4 |
|
| 0.236 | - | 3 |
| C1. Voyage Seaworthiness | 0.239 | 0.056 | 11 |
| C2. Voyage equality | 0.232 | 0.055 | 12 |
| C3. Market share | 0.273 | 0.064 | 8 |
| C4. Cargo owner relationship management | 0.256 | 0.060 | 10 |
|
| 0.124 | - | 4 |
| D1. Marine investigation | 0.236 | 0.029 | 16 |
| D2. Safety report | 0.233 | 0.029 | 17 |
| D3. Recurrence rate of maritime accidents | 0.242 | 0.030 | 15 |
| D4. Subsequent handling of maritime accidents | 0.289 | 0.036 | 14 |
Figure 4Risk accident assessment map.