IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v233y2019i1p58-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of ship inspections in maritime accidents: An analysis of risk using the bow-tie approach

Author

Listed:
  • Panagiotis Sotiralis
  • Konstantinos Louzis
  • Nikolaos P Ventikos

Abstract

Ships are subject to inspections from different maritime stakeholders, such as port states, classification societies, shipowners, managers and operators. Each one implements their own inspection content depending on their role in the construction and operation phase of the vessel life cycle. Because few studies have investigated the influence of ship inspections on accidents, it is uncertain to which extent the current inspection regimes are contributing to reducing accidents. In addition, maritime risk analysis has, so far, not considered thoroughly the role of the inspection process in accident development. As a result, an improved understanding of the influence inspection methods would facilitate the implementation of effective measures for reducing accident probabilities or consequences. The approach used in this article involves identifying the underlying causes and the resulting consequences of accidents that may be associated with inspection issues and combining this knowledge in bow-tie representations. The developed bow-tie diagrams provide useful insights into the role of insufficient inspection practices in the development of maritime accidents and the severity of the resulting consequences. Furthermore, the developed diagrams may be used for investigating the risk from inspection issues by producing generic accident scenarios with every possible combination of the different parameters that describe all the possible pathways, from causes to consequences. Although this is a qualitative approach, it provides valuable insights into safety concerns that result from inspection practices and may also be used as a basis for further quantitative risk analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Panagiotis Sotiralis & Konstantinos Louzis & Nikolaos P Ventikos, 2019. "The role of ship inspections in maritime accidents: An analysis of risk using the bow-tie approach," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 233(1), pages 58-70, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:233:y:2019:i:1:p:58-70
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X18776078
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X18776078
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X18776078?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin X. Li & Haisha Zheng, 2008. "Enforcement of law by the Port State Control (PSC)," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 61-71, February.
    2. Knapp, S. & Franses, Ph.H.B.F., 2006. "Analysis of the Maritime Inspection Regimes - Are ships over-inspected?," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2006-30, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    3. Duijm, Nijs Jan, 2009. "Safety-barrier diagrams as a safety management tool," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 332-341.
    4. Khakzad, Nima & Khan, Faisal & Amyotte, Paul, 2012. "Dynamic risk analysis using bow-tie approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 36-44.
    5. Bijwaard, G.E. & Knapp, S., 2008. "Econometric analysis of ship life cycles - are safety inspections effective?," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2008-02, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    6. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    2. Chai, Naijie & Zhou, Wenliang & Hu, Xinlei, 2022. "Safety evaluation of urban rail transit operation considering uncertainty and risk preference: A case study in China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 267-288.
    3. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    4. Yang, Zhisen & Yang, Zaili & Yin, Jingbo, 2018. "Realising advanced risk-based port state control inspection using data-driven Bayesian networks," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 38-56.
    5. Liu, Aihua & Chen, Ke & Huang, Xiaofei & Li, Didi & Zhang, Xiaochun, 2021. "Dynamic risk assessment model of buried gas pipelines based on system dynamics," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    6. Yang, Zaili & Ng, Adolf K.Y. & Wang, Jin, 2014. "A new risk quantification approach in port facility security assessment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 72-90.
    7. Li, Mei & Liu, Zixian & Li, Xiaopeng & Liu, Yiliu, 2019. "Dynamic risk assessment in healthcare based on Bayesian approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 327-334.
    8. Bhardwaj, U. & Teixeira, A.P. & Guedes Soares, C., 2022. "Casualty analysis methodology and taxonomy for FPSO accident analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 218(PB).
    9. Wang, Shuaian & Yan, Ran & Qu, Xiaobo, 2019. "Development of a non-parametric classifier: Effective identification, algorithm, and applications in port state control for maritime transportation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 129-157.
    10. Michael Felix Pacevicius & Marilia Ramos & Davide Roverso & Christian Thun Eriksen & Nicola Paltrinieri, 2022. "Managing Heterogeneous Datasets for Dynamic Risk Analysis of Large-Scale Infrastructures," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-40, April.
    11. Jaume Belles‐Sampera & Montserrat Guillén & Miguel Santolino, 2014. "Beyond Value‐at‐Risk: GlueVaR Distortion Risk Measures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 121-134, January.
    12. Yan, Ran & Wang, Shuaian & Fagerholt, Kjetil, 2020. "A semi-“smart predict then optimize” (semi-SPO) method for efficient ship inspection," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 100-125.
    13. Jie Xue & Genserik Reniers & Jie Li & Ming Yang & Chaozhong Wu & P.H.A.J.M. van Gelder, 2021. "A Bibliometric and Visualized Overview for the Evolution of Process Safety and Environmental Protection," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-29, June.
    14. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    15. Casson Moreno, Valeria & Guglielmi, Daniele & Cozzani, Valerio, 2018. "Identification of critical safety barriers in biogas facilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 81-94.
    16. Misuri, Alessio & Landucci, Gabriele & Cozzani, Valerio, 2021. "Assessment of risk modification due to safety barrier performance degradation in Natech events," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    17. Landucci, Gabriele & Argenti, Francesca & Tugnoli, Alessandro & Cozzani, Valerio, 2015. "Quantitative assessment of safety barrier performance in the prevention of domino scenarios triggered by fire," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 30-43.
    18. Peng Zhang & Guojin Qin & Yihuan Wang, 2019. "Risk Assessment System for Oil and Gas Pipelines Laid in One Ditch Based on Quantitative Risk Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, March.
    19. Jose Manuel Prieto & Victor Amor & Ignacio Turias & David Almorza & Francisco Piniella, 2021. "Evaluation of Paris MoU Maritime Inspections Using a STATIS Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(17), pages 1-13, August.
    20. Eoin O'Neill & Finbarr Brereton & Harutyun Shahumyan & J. Peter Clinch, 2016. "The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood‐Risk Perception: The Role of Distance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2158-2186, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:233:y:2019:i:1:p:58-70. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.