Ijmet 08 11 083

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
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 812 editor@iaeme.com

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

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

Occupational Safety
and Health Act International
ISO 31000: 1994 (Act 514)- OSHAS 18001: Maritime
2009 ‘Risk Hazard Occupational Health Organization
Terms Management- Identification, Risk and Safety (IMO) 2001-
Principles and Assessment and Management System Formal Safety
Guidelines[37] Risk Control [39] Assessment
(HIRARC), (FSA)[40]
2008[38]
A combination of the
likelihood of an
occurrence of a
hazardous event
(within a specified
period or in specified
The effect of
circumstances) and
Risk uncertainty on N/A N/A
the severity of injury
objectives
or damage (to the
health of people,
property, or the
environment) or any
combination of these
caused by the event.
The process of
evaluating the risks
arising from the
The process of
The overall hazards (a
evaluating any risks The combination
process of risk combination of the
potentially of the frequency
Risk identification, likelihood of a
endangering safety and the severity
Assessment risk analysis, hazardous event or the
and health arising of the
and risk exposure to it and the
from hazards at consequence.
evaluation. severity of injury or ill
work.
health that can be
caused by the event
after exposure).
A series of The total procedure
coordinated associated with
activities to identifying a hazard,
Risk direct and assessing the risks,
N/A N/A
Management control an putting in place
organization control measures,
with regards to and reviewing the
risk outcomes.
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/ Main Components Description
Guidelines
Policy (elements: policy and worker
participation);
Organizing (elements:
responsibility and accountability,
competence and training,
documentation, and
communication);
Planning and implementation The guidelines emphasize the need for
ILO Guidelines on (elements: initial review, system continual improvement of performance
Occupational Safety planning, development and through the constant development of
and Health implementation, objectives and policies, systems, and techniques to
Management hazard prevention); prevent and control work-related
Systems [46] Evaluation (elements: performance injuries, ill health, diseases, and
monitoring and measurement, accidents.
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).
Planning for hazard assessment,
risk assessment, and risk control
OHSAS management programme OHSAS 18001 specifies requirements
Structure and responsibility for the OH&S management system,
Occupational Training, awareness and which is to enable organizations to
Health and Safety competence control their risks and improve their
Management
Consultation and communication performance. The specification is
System (OHSAS
Operational control intended to address occupational health
18001)[39]
Emergency preparation and and safety rather than product or service
response safety.
Performance measurement,
monitoring, and improvement
AS/NZ ISO 31000: Establishing the context Standards that stress the purpose &
2009 ‘Risk Risk assessment – risk benefits, risk assessment, the risk

Amrin
Standards/
Guidelines
management- identification, risk analysis, risk management frameworks, and the risk
Principles and evaluation management process.
guidelines[37] Risk treatment
Communication and consultation
Monitoring and review
The Formal Safety Assessment (FSA)
standard offers a structured and
systematic methodology for assessing
the risks related to maritime safety and
Hazard identification marine environmental protection and for
International
Risk analysis evaluating the costs and reducing risks.
Maritime
The FSA recognizes that there are
Organization (IMO) Risk control options
several different interests involved in
2001- Formal Cost-benefits assessment shipping, such as ship owners, cargo
Safety Assessment Recommendations for decision- owners, third parties, passengers, crews,
(FSA)[40] making 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.
The HIRARC guideline provides a
systematic and objective approach to
Occupational Safety
Classify work activities assessing hazards and their associated
and Health Act
Hazard identification risks that will provide an objective
1994 (Act 514)-
Analyze and estimate risks measure to eliminate an identified
Hazard
hazard as well as provide a method to
Identification, Risk Risk assessment
control the risk. It is one of the general
Assessment and Selecting control duties as prescribed by the Occupational
Risk Control Implement Safety and Health Act 1994 (Act 514)
(HIRARC),
Review and monitoring for the employer to provide a safe
2008[38]
workplace for their employees and other
related persons.
These techniques are applied to British
waters and ports to assess risks of the
maritime transportation of dangerous
Definition of ports and hazardous goods in British waters and ports. The
DNV (2011)- trades framework helps control the risks of
Quantitative Risk Hazard identification major accidents from bulk shipment of
Assessment (QRA) Frequency estimation dangerous cargoes including crude oil,
technique. [47] Consequence estimation flammable and toxic liquefied gases,
Risk presentation flammable liquid petroleum products,
flammable liquid chemicals, and
ammonium nitrate (i.e. dry bulk cargoes)
from affecting people ashore.
The guidelines developed and used for
Marine Accident maritime risk calculation. It was
Risk Calculation Analyze historical accident data to developed in a project named SAFECO
System (MARCS), predict risks. (Safety of Shipping in Coastal Waters)
2000 [48] that was carried out by a consortium
contracted by the Commission of

Standards/
Guidelines
European Community (CEC) through
the 4th Framework Programme,
Waterborne Transport.
Guidelines that provide a massive
number of tools. It was developed by
Risk-Based
Variation of risk assessment tools various organisations and individuals.
Decision-Making
collected by various expert Some of the guidelines were exclusively
(RBDM) Guidelines
organizations and experts developed for the USCG, such as the
U.S. Coast Guard
individuals. Port and Waterway Risk Assessment
(USCG 2001)[49]
Guides (PWRA) and the Waterway
Evaluation Tool (WET).
Identification of the causes of
possible events;
Assessment of the probability of
possible accidents and boundary
conditions; A model focused on the transportation of
hazardous substances which risk
QRA and Risk- Calculation of the physical effects
assessment approach has been developed
Effect Model of an accident;
in the Netherlands for applications on
(REM)[50] Assessment of the probability of the roads, trains, pipelines, and inland
consequences for people and the waterway transportation.
environment;
Assessment of individual risks,
societal risks, environmental risks,
and economic risks.
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/ Main
Applicable to Type of Document
Guidelines Objectives
ILO Guidelines on Occupational
Compliance
Safety and Health Management All industries Guidance Document
and control
Systems [46]
Occupational Health and Safety
Management System (OHSAS All industries Organization Primary standard
18001)[39]
ISO 31000: 2009 ‘Risk
management- Principles and All industries Organization Primary standard
guidelines[37]
International Maritime Organization Maritime and
(IMO) 2001- Formal Safety shipping industry, sea Regulation Legal Document
Assessment (FSA) [40] transport industry
Occupational Safety and Health Act
1994 (Act 514)- Hazard Compliance
All industries Guidance Document
Identification, Risk Assessment and and Control
Risk Control (HIRARC), 2008[38]
Maritime and
DNV (2011)-Quantitative Risk Compliance
shipping industry, sea Guidance Document
Assessment (QRA) technique [47] and Control
transport industry
Maritime and
Marine Accident Risk Calculation Compliance
System (MARCS), 2000 and Control
transport industry
Risk-Based Decision-Making Maritime and
Compliance
(RBDM) Guidelines U.S. Coast shipping industry, sea Guidance Document
and Control
Guard (USCG 2001) transport industry
Maritime and
QRA and Risk-Effect Model Compliance
(REM)[50] and Control
transport industry
Table 4 Main Components of Risk Management

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

Table 5 Advantages and limitation of frameworks

Standards
/Framework/ Advantages Limitation
Guidelines
ILO Guidelines on
Not legally binding and does
Occupational Safety Compatible with other management
not replace national laws,
and Health systems, standards and guidelines (ILO
regulations, and accepted
Management Systems 2001).
standards.
[46]
Promotes organized occupational safety and
Occupational Health health management in stressing the risk The system is too general in
and Safety assessment element as part of the main its application on ports.
Management System components of the standard. However, it is still one of the
(OHSAS 18001)[39] best practices to be followed.
Promotes continuous improvement.
AS/NZ ISO 31000: Details stress on risk assessment process
and techniques. The guideline is too general
2009 ‘Risk
in its application on ports.
management- Promotes involvement from the top to the
However, it is still one of the
Principles and bottom of the organization.
best practices to be followed.
guidelines [37] Promotes continuous improvement
Highly generic framework
that is not intended for
application in all
circumstances (IMO 2002).
Recognizes that there are several different Not readily applicable to risk
interests involved in shipping, such as ship analysis in the maritime
owners, cargo owners, third parties, transportation of dangerous
International Maritime passengers, crews, flag states, port states, goods, including packaged
Organization (IMO) insurers, class societies, associations, etc. dangerous goods.
2001- Formal Safety Includes the identification of shipping Lacks the essential concepts
Assessment (FSA) interests and consideration on the impact of or variables for representing
[40] regulatory options for the relevant shipping and measuring the maritime
interests. transportation system of
Numerous techniques are provided to dangerous goods and risks
facilitate the process. associated with it.
Does not contain a single
term describing essential
concepts related to risks of
dangerous goods.
Occupational Safety
and Health Act 1994
The application is too
(Act 514)- Hazard
general, especially for large
Identification, Risk Easy and simple guideline to be followed.
organizations that require
Assessment and Risk
deeper assessments.
Control (HIRARC),
2008[38]
Confined to the risks of major accidents Limited to risks of the
affecting people ashore in bulk shipment of maritime transport of large
DNV (2011)-
dangerous cargoes, including crude oil, amounts of different types of
Quantitative Risk
flammable and toxic liquefied gases, dangerous goods carried in
Assessment (QRA)
flammable liquid petroleum products, packaged form, injuries and
technique [47]
flammable liquid chemicals, and other health risks, and the
ammonium nitrate (i.e. dry bulk cargoes). marine environment risks.

Amrin
Standards
/Framework/ Advantages Limitation
Guidelines
Limited to analyzing
Marine Accident Risk The model enables the assessment of each historical and accidents data
Calculation System set of the risk control options within a single only. Thus, there are
(MARCS), 2000 framework. possibilities of data
insufficiency.
Risk-Based Decision- Reliable and suitable risk assessment tools Not legally binding and does
Making (RBDM) are provided in the guidelines. not replace national laws,
Guidelines U.S. Coast regulations, and accepted
Guard (USCG 2001) Focused on port and waterway areas. standards.
Able to provide specific risk criteria and
calculation of individual and societal risks
while considering aspects such as volume of Not legally binding and does
QRA and Risk-Effect transport, substances transported, and not replace national laws,
Model (REM)[50] population data along transport routes, and regulations, and accepted
weather effects. standards.
Focused on Netherland’s transportation
such as port, train and etc.
8. RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, GUIDELINES, AND

FRAMEWORKS
One of the major components in port risk management standards is risk assessment. During
the last three decades, risk assessment has emerged as an essential and systematic tool that
plays a relevant role in the overall management of many aspects of our life [26]. Analysis
techniques are applied in many different areas for different purposes [27]. Risk assessment is
generally defined as the process of identification and evaluation of risks or hazards [28]. A
basic risk assessment comprises of five (5) basic steps [68], as illustrated in Figure 2 below:
1. Identification of risks. In this step, risk factors, the triggering events, their causes and
each risk’s potential consequences will be identified.
2. Risk analysis. In this step, the nature and level of risk will be qualitatively or
quantitatively analyzed. Then, risk analysis will provide a picture of the causes and
consequences and aims to describe the risk.
3. Action Plan. In this step, preventive and corrective action will be planned and
scheduled based on the risk level and priority.
4. Monitoring and implementation of action plans.
5. Effective monitoring of measures taken via mechanisms of prevention and protection.
1. Identify 2. Analyze 3. Planning 4.Follow up 5. Control
Figure 2 Risk Assessment Process

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
Pak, J. Y. et al., Fuzzy AHP
1 Korea port Qualitative Questionnaire
2015[29] Questionnaire
Accident data
Zhang et al., Qualitative and
2 Tianjin port analysis Bayesian Accident data
2016[52] Quantitative
Belief Networks
Fuzzy set theory
Mokhtari, K. et al., (FST) Qualitative and
3 Iranian Port Case study
2012 [72] Case Study Quantitative
sensitivity analysis
Mabrouki, C. et al. RO-RO port
4 AHP method Qualitative Statistical data
2014 [68] activity
Vidmar, P.and
Formal Safety
5 Perkovic. M., 2015 Port cruise Qualitative Statistical data
Assessment
[64]
Abdelhakim
Formal Safety
6 Bouzaher et al., Algerian port Qualitative Accident data
assessment
2015[13]
Montewka, J. et Formal Safety
7 Port Qualitative Case study
al., 2014 [57] Assessment
Lu, C.S and Kuo, hierarchical Qualitative and historical
8 Port
S.Y., 2016 [30] regression analysis Quantitative statistical data
Preben H. L. &
9 Kringen, J, Port Case study Qualitative Audit
2015[53]

Wang et al., 2016

10 Port Statistical data Qualitative Historical data
[75]
Wen-Kai K. Hsu, Qualitative and
11 Port AHP and Fuzzy Historical data
2012[76] Quantitative
12 Lei, 2015[77] Port Case study Quantitative Case study
Castaldo,F. Topological map; Qualitative and
13 Port Experiment
2016[78] Bayesian model Quantitative
Perkovic, et al., Port-LNG
14 Statistics Qualitative AIS data
2012 [79] operation
DEMATEL Method,
Yang et. al., Qualitative and Questionnaire,
15 Port cause and effect
2014[80] Quantitative interview
diagram
Abderrahmane et
17 Port Statistics Qualitative Historical data
al.,2016 [81]
Antão, P. et Key Performance
18 Port Qualitative Sampling
al.2015 [58] Indicator
Esma Gül Emecen
19 Port Mathematics Quantitative Sampling
Kara, 2016 [82]
Akyuz et al., 2016 Fuzzy Failure Mode Qualitative and
20 Port Historical data
[71] Effect Analysis Quantitative
Adam, E. F. et al.,
21 Port Statistical Qualitative Historical data
2014[19]
Fabiano, B. et al.,
22 Port Statistical Qualitative Historical data
2010 [15]
9. EXPERT JUDGEMENT IN RISK ASSESSMENT

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

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

Ijmet 08 11 083

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Ijmet 08 11 083

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET)

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

REVIEW ON RISK, RISK ASSESSMENT

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 812 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 813 editor@iaeme.com

2. TERMS, DEFINITIONS, AND CONCEPTS

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 814 editor@iaeme.com

Table 1 Risk Assessment definitions

3. OVERVIEW OF PORT OPERATIONS

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 815 editor@iaeme.com

Figure 1 Port Operations (container terminal)

5. HAZARDS AND RISK IN THE PORT INDUSTRY

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 816 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 817 editor@iaeme.com

6. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS IN IMPLEMENTING RISK

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 818 editor@iaeme.com

7. RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, GUIDELINES, AND

Table 2 Selected standards/ frameworks/ guidelines

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 819 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 820 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 821 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 822 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 823 editor@iaeme.com

Table 4 Main Components of Risk Management

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 824 editor@iaeme.com

Table 5 Advantages and limitation of frameworks

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 825 editor@iaeme.com

8. RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARDS, GUIDELINES, AND

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

Figure 2 Risk Assessment Process

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 826 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 827 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 828 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 829 editor@iaeme.com

Table 6 List of studies with research assessment techniques

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 830 editor@iaeme.com

Wang et al., 2016

9. EXPERT JUDGEMENT IN RISK ASSESSMENT

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 831 editor@iaeme.com

10. CONTROL MEASURES: AS LOW AS REASONABLY APPLICABLE

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 832 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 833 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 834 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 835 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 836 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 837 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 838 editor@iaeme.com

Anda mungkin juga menyukai