On a risk perspective for maritime domain

• Autorzy: Montewka J. , Goerlandt F. , Kujala P.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In the maritime domain, the risk is evaluated within the framework of Formal Safety Assessment (FSA), introduced by International Maritime Organization in 2002. Although the FSA has become internationally recognized and recommended method, the definition, which is adopted there, to describe the risk, seems to be too narrow to reflect properly the actual content of the FSA. Therefore this article discusses methodological requirements for the risk perspective, which is appropriate for risk management in the maritime domain with the special attention to maritime transportation systems (MTS). This perspective considers risk as a set encompassing the following: the set of plausible scenarios leading to an accident, the likelihoods of the unwanted events within the scenarios and the consequences of the events. These elements are conditional upon the available knowledge about the analyzed system, and understanding of the system behaviour, therefore these two are inherent parts of risk analysis, and need to be included in the risk description.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

maritime traffic; probabilistic modeling; risk analysis; risk management; decision making

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Bezpieczeństwa i Niezawodności
• Czasopismo: Journal of Polish Safety and Reliability Association
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: Vol. 4, No. 1
• Strony: 101--108
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 36 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Montewka J.

• Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

autor

Goerlandt F.

• Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

autor

Kujala P.

• Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

Bibliografia

• [1] Ale, B.J.M., Bellamy, L.J., van der Boom, R., Cooper, J., Cooke, R.M., Goossens, L.H.J., Hale, A.R., Kurowicka, D., Morales, O., Roelen, A.L.C. & Spouge, J. Further development of a Causal model for Air Transport Safety (CATS): Building the mathematical heart. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 94, No. 9, 1433-1441, Sep. 2009.
• [2] Apostolakis, G.E. (1990). The Concept of Probability in Safety Assessments of Technological Systems. Science, Vol. 250, No. 4986, 1359-1364.
• [3] Aven, T. (2012). Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management. Risk Analysis, Vol. 32, No. 10, 1647-56.
• [4] Aven, T. (2010). On how to define, understand and describe risk. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 95, No. 6, 623-631.
• [5] Aven, T. (2013). Practical implications of the new risk perspectives. Reliability Engineering & System Safety.
• [6] Aven, T. (2012). The risk concept-historical and recent development trends. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 99, No. 0, 33-44.
• [7] Aven, T. & Heide, B. (2009). Reliability and validity of risk analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 94, No. 11, 1862-1868.
• [8] Aven, T. & Zio, E. (2011). Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 96, No. 1, 64-74.
• [9] Baumberger, C. (2011). Understanding and its Relation to Knowledge, 16-18.
• [10] Devanney, J. (2013). Formal Safety Assessment in Wonderland. Center for Tankship Excellence, USA
• [11] Flage, R. & Aven, T. (2009). On treatment of uncertainty in system planning. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 94, No. 4, 884-890.
• [12] IMO, Guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the imo rule-making process. 2002.
• [13] IMO, Formal Safety Assessment, Outcome of MSC 90. Draft revised FSA guidelines and draft HEAP guidelines.” IMO, Aug-2012.
• [14] Kaplan, S. (1997). The Words of Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis, Vol. 17, No. 4, 407-417.
• [15] Kaplan, S. & Garrick, B.J. (1981). On The Quantitative Definition of Risk. Risk Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1, 11-27.
• [16] Kontovas, C.A. & Psaraftis, H.N. (2009). Formal Safety Assessment: A Critical Review. Marine Technology, Vol. 46, No. 1, 45-59.
• [17] Kristiansen, S. (2010) A BBN approach for analysis of maritime accident scenarios.
• [18] Levin, R. (2006). Adequacy Conditions for Reporting Uncertainty in Chemical Risk Assessments. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, Vol. 12, No. 5, 834-855.
• [19] M.-W. Dictionaries, Knowledge - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Available: http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/knowledge.
• [20] Mullai, A. & Paulsson, U. (2011). A grounded theory model for analysis of marine accidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 43, No. 4, 1590-1603.
• [21] Nilsen, T. & Aven, T. (2003). Models and model uncertainty in the context of risk analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 79, No. 3, 309-317.
• [22] O. Dictionaries, Knowledge. Oxford University Press, Apr-2010.
• [23] Paté-Cornell, M.E. (1996). Uncertainties in risk analysis: Six levels of treatment. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 54, No. 2-3, 95-111.
• [24] Pritchard, D. (2009). Knowledge, Understanding and Epistemic Value. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, Vol. 64, 19-43.
• [25] Psaraftis, H. N. (2012). Formal Safety Assessment: an updated review. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 17, No. 3, 390-402.
• [26] Rae, A., McDermid, J. & Rob, A. (2012). The Science and Superstition of Quantitative Risk Assessment.
• [27] Roelen, L.C. (2008). Causal risk models of air transport: comparison of user needs and model capabilities. IOS Press, 2008.
• [28] Roelen, A.L.C., Lin, P.H. & Hale, A.R. (2011). Accident models and organisational factors in air transport: The need for multi-method models. Safety Science, Vol. 49, No. 1, 5-10.
• [29] Rosqvist, T. & Tuominen, R. (2004). Qualification of Formal Safety Assessment: an exploratory study. Safety Science, Vol. 42, No. 2, 99-120.
• [30] Rosqvist, T. (2010). On the validation of risk analysis - A commentary. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 95, No. 11, 1261-1265.
• [31] Rowe, W.D. (1994). Understanding Uncertainty. Risk Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 5, 743-750.
• [32] Stirling, A. & Gee, D. (2002). Science, precaution, and practice. Public Health Reports, Vol. 117, No. 6, 521-533.
• [33] Veland, H. & Aven, T. (2013). Risk communication in the light of different risk perspectives. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 110, No. 0, 34-40.
• [34] Winkler, R.L. (1996). Uncertainty in probabilistic risk assessment. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 54, No. 2-3, 127-132.
• [35] Zio, E. & Aven, T. (2012). Industrial disasters: Extreme events, extremely rare. Some reflections on the treatment of uncertainties in the assessment of the associated risks. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Sep. 2012.
• [36] Zio, E. & Apostolakis, G.E. (1996). Two methods for the structured assessment of model uncertainty by experts in performance assessments of radioactive waste repositories. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 54, No. 2-3, 225-241.