REVIEW ON RISK, RISK ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES, · PDF fileAccording to the statistics of accidents by sector recorded by DOSH Malaysia from the year . Review on Risk, Risk Assessment

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 812 [email protected]

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 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

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.

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.



Table 1 Risk Assessment definitions

Terms

ISO 31000:

2009 ‘Risk

Management-

Principles and

Guidelines[37]

Occupational Safety

and Health Act

1994 (Act 514)-

Hazard

Identification, Risk

Assessment and

Risk Control

(HIRARC),

2008[38]

OSHAS 18001:

Occupational Health

and Safety

Management System

[39]

International

Maritime

Organization

(IMO) 2001-

Formal Safety

Assessment

(FSA)[40]

Risk

The effect of

uncertainty on

objectives

A combination of the

likelihood of an

occurrence of a

hazardous event

(within a specified

period or in specified

circumstances) and

the severity of injury

or damage (to the

health of people,

property, or the

environment) or any

combination of these

caused by the event.

N/A N/A

Risk

Assessment

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.

Risk

Management

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.

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


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.

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.



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


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.



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


Amrin


Standards/

Framework/

Guidelines


management-

Principles and

guidelines[37]

identification, risk analysis, risk

evaluation

Risk treatment

Communication and consultation

Monitoring and review

management frameworks, and the risk

management process.

International

Maritime

Organization (IMO)

2001- Formal

Safety Assessment

(FSA)[40]

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.

Occupational Safety

and Health Act

1994 (Act 514)-

Hazard


Assessment and

Risk Control

(HIRARC),

2008[38]

Classify work activities


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.

DNV (2011)-

Quantitative Risk

Assessment (QRA)

technique. [47]

Definition of ports and hazardous

trades


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



Standards/

Framework/

Guidelines


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


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



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.


Amrin


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

Standards /Framework/

Guidelines Applicable to

Main

Objectives Type of Document

ILO Guidelines on Occupational

Safety and Health Management

Systems [46]

All industries Compliance

and control Guidance Document

Occupational Health and Safety

Management System (OHSAS

18001)[39]

All industries Organization Primary standard

ISO 31000: 2009 ‘Risk

management- Principles and

guidelines[37]

All industries Organization Primary standard

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]

All industries Compliance

and Control Guidance Document

DNV (2011)-Quantitative Risk

Assessment (QRA) technique [47]

Maritime and


transport industry

Compliance


Marine Accident Risk Calculation

System (MARCS), 2000

Maritime and


transport industry

Compliance


Risk-Based Decision-Making

(RBDM) Guidelines U.S. Coast

Guard (USCG 2001)

Maritime and


transport industry

Compliance


QRA and Risk-Effect Model

(REM)[50]

Maritime and


transport industry

Compliance


Table 4 Main Components of Risk Management

Establish the

context

Risk

Identification

Risk

Analysis

Risk

Evaluation

Risk

Control

Risk

Monitoring and

Review

Training

and

Awareness

Risk

Communication

Cost Benefit

Analysis

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

� � � �



Table 5 Advantages and limitation of frameworks

Standards

/Framework/

Guidelines

Advantages Limitation

ILO Guidelines on

Occupational Safety

and Health

Management Systems

[46]

Compatible with other management

systems, standards and guidelines (ILO

2001).

Not legally binding and does

not replace national laws,

regulations, and accepted

standards.

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:

2009 ‘Risk

management-

Principles and

guidelines [37]

Details stress on risk assessment process

and techniques.

Promotes involvement from the top to the

bottom of the organization.

Promotes continuous improvement

The guideline is too general

in its application on ports.

However, it is still one of the

best practices to be followed.

International Maritime

Organization (IMO)

2001- Formal Safety

Assessment (FSA)

[40]

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.

Occupational Safety

and Health Act 1994

(Act 514)- Hazard


Assessment and Risk

Control (HIRARC),

2008[38]

Easy and simple guideline to be followed.

The application is too

general, especially for large

organizations that require

deeper assessments.

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.


Amrin


Standards

/Framework/

Guidelines

Advantages Limitation

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.




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.




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.

Figure 2 Risk Assessment Process

1. Identify 2. Analyze 3. Planning 4.Follow up 5. Control



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


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-



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.


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.,

2015[29] Korea port

Fuzzy AHP

Questionnaire Qualitative Questionnaire

2 Zhang et al.,

2016[52] Tianjin port

Accident data

analysis Bayesian

Belief Networks

Qualitative and

Quantitative Accident data

3 Mokhtari, K. et al.,

2012 [72] Iranian Port

Fuzzy set theory

(FST)

Case Study

sensitivity analysis

Qualitative and

Quantitative Case study

4 Mabrouki, C. et al.

2014 [68]

RO-RO port

activity AHP method Qualitative Statistical data

5

Vidmar, P.and

Perkovic. M., 2015

[64]

Port cruise Formal Safety

Assessment Qualitative Statistical data

6

Abdelhakim

Bouzaher et al.,

2015[13]

Algerian port Formal Safety

assessment Qualitative Accident data

7 Montewka, J. et

al., 2014 [57] Port

Formal Safety

Assessment Qualitative Case study

8 Lu, C.S and Kuo,

S.Y., 2016 [30] Port

hierarchical

regression analysis

Qualitative and

Quantitative

historical

statistical data

9

Preben H. L. &

Kringen, J,

2015[53]

Port Case study Qualitative Audit



10 Wang et al., 2016

[75] Port Statistical data Qualitative Historical data

11 Wen-Kai K. Hsu,

2012[76] Port AHP and Fuzzy

Qualitative and

Quantitative Historical data

12 Lei, 2015[77] Port Case study Quantitative Case study

13 Castaldo,F.

2016[78] Port

Topological map;

Bayesian model

Qualitative and

Quantitative Experiment

14 Perkovic, et al.,

2012 [79]

Port-LNG

operation Statistics Qualitative AIS data

15 Yang et. al.,

2014[80] Port

DEMATEL Method,

cause and effect

diagram

Qualitative and

Quantitative

Questionnaire,

interview

17 Abderrahmane et

al.,2016 [81] Port Statistics Qualitative Historical data

18 Antão, P. et

al.2015 [58] Port

Key Performance

Indicator Qualitative Sampling

19 Esma Gül Emecen

Kara, 2016 [82] Port Mathematics Quantitative Sampling

20 Akyuz et al., 2016

[71] Port

Fuzzy Failure Mode

Effect Analysis

Qualitative and

Quantitative Historical data

21 Adam, E. F. et al.,

2014[19] Port Statistical Qualitative Historical data

22 Fabiano, B. et al.,

2010 [15] Port Statistical Qualitative Historical data

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.


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



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,


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

behaviour in electronics manufacturing sector (EMS) in Malaysia: The case of

Flextronics. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 454 – 461.

[2] Amin, Z., Mohammad, R., Abdul Aziz, S., & Othman, N. (2015). Workers’ safety

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.

[3] 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

avoidance program for occupational safety and health. The International Journal of

Engineering and Science, 3(10), 62-68.

[5] Hee, O. E. (2014). Factors contribute to safety culture in the manufacturing industry in

Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences,

4(4), 63-69.

[6] 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

safety work culture in Malaysian manufacturing industry. BIOINFO Business

Management, 2 (1), 11-15.

[8] 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),

1999-2006.

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

in-depth: Handling safety incidents and accident precursors in light of safety principles

Safety Science, 91,154–167.

[10] Zhao, B. (2016). Facts and lessons related to the explosion accident in Tianjin Port, China.

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of

Natural Hazards, 84, 707-713.

[11] Ng, C. A., Berg, M. B., Jude, D. J., Janssen, J., Charlebois, P.M., Amaral, L. A. N., &

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.

[12] Chlomoudis, C. I., Kostagiolas, P. A., & Pallis, L. P. (2012). An Analysis for Formal Risk

and Safety Assessments for Ports: Empirical Evidence from Container Terminals in

Greece, Journal of Shipping and Ocean Engineering 2(1): 45-54.

[13] 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



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:

Journal Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 227(2), 208–220.

[16] Fabiano, B., Currò, F., Reverberi, A.P., & Pastorino, R. (2010). Port safety and the

container revolution: A statistical study on human factor and occupational accidents over

the long period. Safety Science, 48(8), 980-990.

[17] Amyotte, P. R., Berger, S., Edwards, D. W., Gupta, J.P., Hendershot, D. C., Khan, F.,

Mannan, M.S & Willey, R. J. (2016). Why major accidents are still occurring. Current

Opinion in Chemical Engineering, 14, 1–8.

[18] Inan, U. H., Gül, S., & Yılmaz., A. (2017). A multiple attribute decision model to

compare the firms’ occupational health and safety management perspectives. Safety

Science, 91, 221–231.

[19] Adam, E.F., Brown, S., & Nicholls, R.J. (2016). A systematic assessment of maritime

disruptions affecting UK ports, coastal areas and surrounding seas from 1950 to 2014.

Natural Hazards, 83, 691-703.

[20] Akyildiz, H. & Mentes, A. (2017). An integrated risk assessment based on uncertainty

analysis for cargo vessel safety. Safety science, 42, 34-43.

[21] Emovon, I., Norman, R. A, Murphy, A. J., & Pazouki, K. (2015). An integrated multi

criteria decision making methodology using compromise solution methods for prioritising

risk of marine machinery systems. Ocean Engineering, 105, 92–103.

[22] Bhandari, J., Abbassi, R., Garaniya, V., & Khan, F. (015). Risk analysis of deep-water

drilling operations using Bayesian network. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process

Industries, 38, 11-23.

[23] Thekdi, S., & Aven, T. (2016). An enhanced data-analytic framework for integrating risk

management and performance management. Reliability Engineering and System Safety,

156, 277–287.

[24] Tian, B., Gao, W., & Wang, Q. (2014). Studies on ships collision avoidance with SAPSO

arithmetic. Advanced Materials Research, 971-973, 1338-1342.

[25] Karahalios, H. (2014). The contribution of risk management in ship management: The

case of ship collision. Safety Science, 63, 104–114.

[26] Villa, V., Nicola Paltrinieri, N., Khan, F., & Cozzani, V. (2016). Towards dynamic risk

analysis: A review of the risk assessment approach and its limitations in the chemical

process industry. Safety Science, 89, 77–93.

[27] Inanloo, B., Tansel, B., Shams, K., Jin, X., & Gan, A. (2016). A decision aid GIS-based

risk assessment and vulnerability analysis approach for transportation and pipeline

networks. Safety Science, 84, 57–66.

[28] Bolat, P., & Yong, X. J. (2013). Risk assessment of potential catastrophic accidents for

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

126–135.

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

captain’s perspective: The Korean experience Safety Science, 72, 172–181.

[30] 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.


Amrin


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

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.

[32] Sholihah, O., Hanafi, A.S., Bachri, A. A., & Fauzi, R. (2016). Ergonomics awareness as

efforts to increase knowledge and prevention of musculoskeletal disorders on fishermen.

Aquatic Procedia, 7, 187-194.

[33] Veselinovic, S. P., Hedge, A., & Veselinovic, M. (2016). An ergonomic expert system for

risk assessment of work-related musculo-skeletal disorders. International Journal of

Industrial Ergonomics, 53, 130-139.

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

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.

[35] Huda, N. Z., Norudin, M., & Zalinawati, A. (2016). Workplace accident in Malaysia: most

common causes and solutions. Business and Management Review, 2(5), 75 – 88.

[36] Yang, Y. L., Ding, J. F., Chiu, C. C., Shyu, W. H., Tseng, W. J., & Chou, M. T. (2016).

Core risk factors influencing safe handling operations for container terminals at

Kaohsiung port. Journal Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 230(2), 444–453.

[37] AS/NZ ISO 31000: 2009 ‘Risk management- Principles and guidelines.

[38] Department of Occupational Safety and Health Malaysia. Guidelines of Hazard

Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control (2005).

[39] International standard organization. Occupational Health and Safety Management System

(OHSAS 18001) 2015.

[40] Guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process

international maritime organization 2002, Available from: International Maritime

organization.

[41] Lee, K.N., Kwon, H. M., Cho, S. S., Kim, J. Y., & Moon, I. (2016). Improvements of

safety management system in Korean chemical industry after a large chemical accident.

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 42, 6-13.

[42] Kontogiannis, T., Leva, M. C., & Balfe, N. (2016). Total Safety Management: Principles,

processes and methods. Safety Science, 1, 1–5.

[43] Gerard I. J., Zwetsloot, M., Hale, H., & Zwanikken, S. (2011). Regulatory risk control

through mandatory occupational safety and health (OSH) certification and testing regimes

(CTRs). Safety Science, 49, 995–1006.

[44] Lenhardt, U., & Beck, D. (2016). Prevalence and quality of workplace risk assessments –

Findings from a representative company survey in Germany. Safety Science, 48–56, 86.

[45] Kouabenan, D.R., Ngueutsa, R., & Mbaye, S. (2015). Safety climate, perceived risk, and

involvement in safety management. Safety Science, 77, 72–79.

[46] 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

Techniques. DaGoB publication.

[51] 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.



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

areas: a case study of industrial areas and harbors in Norway, Journal of Risk Research,

18:7, 931-946.

[54] Eleftheria, E., Apostolos, P., & Markos, V. (2016). Statistical analysis of ship accidents

and review of safety level. Safety Science, 85, 282–292.

[55] Le Duy, T. D., Vasseur, D., & Serdet, E. (2016). Probabilistic Safety Assessment of twin-

unit nuclear sites: Methodological elements. Reliability Engineering and System Safety,

145, 250–261.

[56] Knudsen, O. F., & Hassler, B. (2011). IMO legislation and its implementation: Accident

risk, vessel deficiencies and national administrative practices. Marine Policy, 35, 201-207.

[57] 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,

142-157.

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

Identification of Occupational Health, Safety, Security (OHSS) and Environmental

Performance Indicators in port areas. Safety Science, 85, 266-275.

[59] 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

(the Guidelines). Available from Australia Port Authority.

[62] 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).

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.

[64] Vidmar, P., & Perkovic, M. (2015). Methodological approach for safety assessment of

cruise ship in port. Safety Science, 80, 189–200.

[65] Wang, J. and Foinikis, P. (2010). Formal safety assessment of containership. Science

Direct, 143‐157.

[66] Haapasaari, P., Helle, I., Lehikoinen, A., Lappalainen, J., & Kuikka, S. (2015). A

proactive approach for maritime safety policy making for the Gulf of Finland: Seeking

best practices. Marine Policy, 60, 107–118.

[67] Dong, Y., & Frangopol, D. M. (2015). Probabilistic ship collision risk and sustainability

assessment considering risk attitudes. Structural Safety, 53 (2015) 75–84.

[68] Mabrouki, Charif & Bentaleb, Fatimazahra & Mousrij, Ahmed. 2014. A decision support

methodology for risk management within a port terminal. Safety Science, 63. 124–132.

[69] Kumar, P., Gupta, S., Agarwal., M., & Singh, U. (2016) Categorization and

standardization of accidental risk-criticality levels of human error to develop risk and

safety management policy. Safety Science, 85, 88–98.

[70] Jusoh, Z., Shattar, N.A., Majid, M. A. B., & Adenana, N. D. (2016). Determination of

hazard in captive hotel laundry using semi quantitative risk assessment matrix. Procedia -

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222, 915-922.

[71] Akyuz, E. (2016). A marine accident analysing model to evaluate potential operational

causes in cargo ships. Safety Science, 92, 17-25.

[72] Mokhtari, K., Ren, J., Roberts, C., & Wang, J. (2012). Decision support framework for

risk management on sea ports and terminals using fuzzy set theory and evidential

reasoning approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 5087–5103.

[73] Goerlandt, F., & Reniers, G. (2016). On the assessment of uncertainty in risk diagrams.

Safety Science, 84, 67–77.


Amrin


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

assessment risks in maintenance operations. Built Environment Project and Asset

Management, 4, 384-405.

[75] Wang, R., Zheng, W., Liang, Ci., & Tang, T. (2016). An integrated hazard identification

method based on the hierarchical Colored Petri Net. Safety Science, 88, 166–179.

[76] Wen-Kai & Hsu, K. (2012). Ports’ service attributes for ship navigation safety. Safety

Science, 50, 244–252.

[77] Lei, D., Chang-shi, X., Yuan-qiao, W. and Le, W. (2015). Safe speed of ships passing

access channel of port. International Conference on Transportation Information and

Safety, Wuhan, 623-627.

[78] Castaldo, F., Palmieri, F. A. N. and Regazzoni, C. S. (2016). Bayesian analysis of

behaviors and interactions for situation awareness in transportation systems. IEEE

Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 17(2), 313-322.

[79] Perkovic, M., Gucma, L., Przywarty, M., Gucma, M., Petelin, S., & Vidmar, P. Marko, P.

(2012). Nautical risk assessment for LNG operations at the port of Koper. Journal of

Mechanical Engineering, 58, 10, 607-613.

[80] Yang, Y.L., Ding, J. F., Chiu, C.C., Shyu, W.H., Tseng, W. J. and Chou, M.T. (2014).

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.

[81] Abderrahmane Bouda Nour El Islam, Bachari Lylia & Bahmed Ryad Boubenia (2016).

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.

[82] Emecen Kara, E.G. (2016). Risk Assessment in the Istanbul Strait Using Black Sea MOU

Port State Control Inspections. Sustainability, 8(4), 390.

[83] Mou, M.M., Tak, C.V.F. and Ligteringen, H. (2010). Study on collision avoidance in busy

waterways by using AIS data. Ocean Engineering, 37, 483-490.

[84] Shitel Thekdi, & Terje Aven (2016). An enhanced data-analytic framework for integrating

risk management and performance management. Reliability Engineering and System

Safety, 156, 277–287.

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

in the Process Industries, 41, 344-354.

[86] Amir-Heidari, P., Maknoon, R., Taheri, B., & Bazyari, M. (2016). Identification of

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.

[87] S. Drissi, S. Benhadou and H. Medromi, An Autonomous Risk Assessment Model for

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.

[88] Dr. Nabaa Shakir Hadi, Potential Health Risk Assessment for Soil and Air Heavy Metal

Contamination in Baghdad City. International Journal of Civil Engineering and

Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 236–251.

[89] 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

Documents

REVIEW ON RISK, RISK ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES, · PDF fileAccording to the statistics of accidents by sector recorded by DOSH Malaysia from the year . Review on Risk, Risk Assessment