IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orinte/v37y2007i3p240-252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Making Decisions About Safety in US Ports and Waterways

Author

Listed:
  • Jason R. W. Merrick

    (Department of Statistical Sciences and Operations Research, Virginia Commonwealth University, PO Box 843083, 1001 West Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23284)

  • John R. Harrald

    (Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, George Washington University, 1776 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20052)

Abstract

The US Coast Guard (USCG) is charged with maintaining an acceptable level of safety in US ports and waterways. Allocating resources to solve safety problems is difficult because multiple attributes of a port or waterway affect its safety and determine whether a particular safety measure will improve it. We based the ports and waterways safety assessment (PAWSA) model on multiattribute decision analysis techniques and local experts’ and stakeholders’ assessments of safety levels and the effects safety alternatives would have on these levels. The USCG used the PAWSA model to justify funding for four new vessel traffic service centers and to determine new technology requirements for all commercial vessels using US waters. The USCG has adopted it as a permanent part of its safety management tool kit.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason R. W. Merrick & John R. Harrald, 2007. "Making Decisions About Safety in US Ports and Waterways," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 37(3), pages 240-252, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:37:y:2007:i:3:p:240-252
    DOI: 10.1287/inte.1060.0258
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.1060.0258
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/inte.1060.0258?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. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    3. Johan R. Van Dorp & Jason R. W. Merrick & John R. Harrald & Thomas A. Mazzuchi & Martha Grabowski, 2001. "A Risk Management Procedure for the Washington State Ferries," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 127-142, February.
    4. Timothy G. Fowler & Eirik Sørgård, 2000. "Modeling Ship Transportation Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 225-244, April.
    5. Thomas L. Saaty, 1990. "An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 259-268, March.
    6. Patrick T. Harker & Luis G. Vargas, 1990. "Reply to "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process" by J. S. Dyer," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 269-273, March.
    7. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    8. Simon, Herbert A, 1979. "Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 493-513, September.
    9. Jason R. W. Merrick & J. René van Dorp & Thomas Mazzuchi & John R. Harrald & John E. Spahn & Martha Grabowski, 2002. "The Prince William Sound Risk Assessment," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 25-40, December.
    10. Ronald A. Howard, 2004. "Speaking of Decisions: Precise Decision Language," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(2), pages 71-78, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thekdi, Shital A. & Aven, Terje, 2018. "A methodology to evaluate risk for supporting decisions involving alignment with organizational values," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 84-93.
    2. Günay Uzun & Metin Dağdeviren & Mehmet Kabak, 2016. "Determining the Distribution of Coast Guard Vessels," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 46(4), pages 297-314, August.
    3. Ed Cook & Jason R. W. Merrick, 2023. "Technology Implementation at Capital One," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 178-191, May.

    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. Millet, Ido & Saaty, Thomas L., 2000. "On the relativity of relative measures - accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 205-212, February.
    2. Abbas, Ali E. & Hupman, Andrea C., 2023. "Scale dependence in weight and rate multicriteria decision methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(1), pages 225-235.
    3. Höfer, Tim & Sunak, Yasin & Siddique, Hafiz & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 222-243.
    4. Leung, Lawrence C. & Cao, Dong, 2001. "On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 39-49, July.
    5. Michele Bernasconi & Christine Choirat & Raffaello Seri, 2010. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Theory of Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 699-711, April.
    6. Schniederjans, Marc J. & Garvin, Tim, 1997. "Using the analytic hierarchy process and multi-objective programming for the selection of cost drivers in activity-based costing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 72-80, July.
    7. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    8. Ardalan Bafahm & Minghe Sun, 2019. "Some Conflicting Results in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 465-486, March.
    9. Majumdar, Abhijit & Tiwari, Manoj Kumar & Agarwal, Aastha & Prajapat, Kanika, 2021. "A new case of rank reversal in analytic hierarchy process due to aggregation of cost and benefit criteria," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 8(C).
    10. Stam, Antonie & Duarte Silva, A. Pedro, 2003. "On multiplicative priority rating methods for the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 92-108, February.
    11. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.
    12. Saul I. Gass, 2005. "Model World: The Great Debate—MAUT Versus AHP," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 308-312, August.
    13. Liberatore, Matthew J. & Nydick, Robert L., 2008. "The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 194-207, August.
    14. Olson, David L. & Fliedner, Gene & Currie, Karen, 1995. "Comparison of the REMBRANDT system with analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 522-539, May.
    15. Madjid Tavana, 2003. "CROSS: A Multicriteria Group-Decision-Making Model for Evaluating and Prioritizing Advanced-Technology Projects at NASA," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 40-56, June.
    16. Oliva, Gabriele & Scala, Antonio & Setola, Roberto & Dell’Olmo, Paolo, 2019. "Opinion-based optimal group formation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 164-176.
    17. Belton, Valerie & Goodwin, Paul, 1996. "Remarks on the application of the analytic hierarchy process to judgmental forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 155-161, March.
    18. M Tavana, 2006. "A priority assessment multi-criteria decision model for human spaceflight mission planning at NASA," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1197-1215, October.
    19. Suwignjo, P. & Bititci, U. S & Carrie, A. S, 2000. "Quantitative models for performance measurement system," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-3), pages 231-241, March.
    20. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.

    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:inm:orinte:v:37:y:2007:i:3:p:240-252. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.