Developing ergonomic practices on board ships: a pilot study based on a multiple regression approach

• Autorzy: Medić Dario , Bubalo Tomislav , Krstinić Nikola , Jelaska Igor

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/pomr-2025-0045

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The aim of this study is to quantify the impact of selected factors on seafarers satisfaction with ergonomics in the work environment. A sample of N=45 experienced seafarers were asked to complete a validated and reliable questionnaire to assess their perception of their working conditions, the application of ergonomic principles, the presence of health issues related to ergonomics, and the need for further education on this topic. A linear multiple regression analysis showed that none of the factors examined here had a statistically significant impact on seafarers’ satisfaction with ergonomics (p > 0.05). The perception of ergonomic conditions had the highest non-significant positive effect (b = 0.34, b* = 0.35, t = 1.76, p = 0.09). This study analyses the most recent stage of integration of ergonomic practices among seafarers and highlights the importance of enhancing education and raising awareness among seafarers regarding the application of ergonomic principles. The results contribute to a better understanding of ergonomic challenges in the Maritime industry, and offer initial insights that may support future improvements to the working conditions on board ships.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

seafarers; ergonomic practices; employee satisfaction; working conditions; ship safety

• Wydawca: Gdańsk University of Technology, Faculty of Ocean Engineering & Ship Technology
• Czasopismo: Polish Maritime Research
• Rocznik: 2025
• Tom: nr 3
• Strony: 171--181
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 30 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Medić Dario

• Faculty of Maritime Studies - University of Split, Split, Croatia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4455-0851

autor

Bubalo Tomislav

• TJB Business Consulting d.o.o., Zagreb, Croatia

autor

Krstinić Nikola

• Faculty of Maritime Studies – University of Split, Split, Croatia

• https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6392-7707

autor

Jelaska Igor

• Faculty of Kinesiology – University of Split, Croatia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5566-5235

Bibliografia

• 1. Osterman C, Rose L. Assessing financial impact of Maritime ergonomics on company level: a case study. Marit Policy Manag 2015, vol. 42, pp. 555-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2014.904946.
• 2. Grech MR, Horberry TJ, Koester T. Human factors in the maritime domain. CRC Press; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429355417.
• 3. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Guidance Notes on the Application of Ergonomics to Marine Systems. New York: 2013.
• 4. MSC.1/Circ.1598 - Guidelines on Fatigue. International Maritime Organization - IMO; 2019.
• 5. Delleman N, Boocock M, Kapitaniak B, Schaefer P, Schaub K. ISO/FDIS 11226: Evaluation of static working postures. Proc XIVth Trienn Congr Int Ergon Assoc 44th Annu Meet Hum Factors Ergon Assoc ’Ergonomics New Millenn 2000, pp. 442–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120004403512.
• 6. Reilly T. Ergonomics in sport and physical activity: Enhancing performance and improving safety. London: Routledge; 2010.
• 7. ISO 6385:2016—Ergonomics principles in the design of work systems. International Organization for Standardization; 2016.
• 8. MSC/Circ.982—Guidelines on Ergonomic Criteria for Bridge Equipment and Layout. International Maritime Organization - IMO; 2000.
• 9. Guidance Notes on Ergonomic Design of Navigation Bridges. Houston: American Bureau of Shipping; 2018. 10. ISO 8468:2007 Ships and marine technology – Ship’s bridge layout and associated equipment – Requirements and guidelines. ISO; 2007.
• 11. Kasum J, Vladislavić K. Shipbuilding architecture and bridge ergonomics. In: Proceedings of the GIS Conference 2006; 2006 Jan 1; Šibenik, Croatia.
• 12. Kongsvik T, Vedal Storkersen K, Antonsen S. The relationship between regulation, safety management systems and safety culture in the maritime industry. In: Steenbergen RDJ et al., eds. Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis: Beyond the Horizon. London: Taylor & Francis Group; 2013.
• 13. Zaib A;, Yin J;, Khan RU, Zaib A, Yin J, Khan RU. Determining Role of Human Factors in Maritime Transportation Accidents by Fuzzy Fault Tree Analysis (FFTA). J Mar Sci Eng 2022, Vol 10, Page 381 2022;10:381. https://doi.org/10.3390/JMSE10030381.
• 14. Osterman C, Rose L, Osvalder AL. Exploring Maritime ergonomics from a bottom line perspective. WMU J Marit Aff 2010, vol. 9, pp. 153–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03195172.
• 15. Oldenburg M, Baur X, Schlaich C. Occupational risks and challenges of seafaring. J Occup Health 2010, vol. 52, pp. 249-56. https://doi.org/10.1539/JOH.K10004.
• 16. Jepsen JR, Zhao Z, Pekcan C, Barnett M, Van Leeuwen WMA. Risk factors for fatigue in shipping, the consequences for seafarers’ health and options for preventive intervention. In: Barnes MR, Boyesen M, editors. Maritime Psychology: Research in Organizational and Health Behavior at Sea. Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45430-6_6.
• 17. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2009.18. Krstinić N, Medić D, Jelaska I, Bakota M. Reliability and validity of the questionnaire for examining the integration of ergonomic practice among seafarers. 11th Int. Marit. Sci. Conf., Split: 2025.
• 19. Bryman A. Social research strategies. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2021.
• 20. Declaration of Helsinki—WMA—The World Medical Association n.d. Retrieved from https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/
• 21. Wu B, Yip TL, Yan X, Guedes Soares C. Review of techniques and challenges of human and organizational factors analysis in maritime transportation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2022, vol. 219, p. 108249. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESS.2021.108249.
• 22. Adumene S, Afenyo M, Salehi V, William P. An Adaptive model for human factors assessment in Maritime operations. Int J Ind Ergon 2022, vol. 89, p. 103293. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERGON.2022.103293.
• 23. TIBCOR Data Science Service for TIBCO SpotfireR 14.1.0 n.d. Retrieved from https://docs.tibco.com/products/tibco-data-science-service-for-tibco-spotfire-14-1-0
• 24. Hair J, Black WC, Babin BJ, Ralph E. Anderson S. Multivariate data analysis. 8th ed. Andover: Cengage Learning; 2018.
• 25. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed‐mode surveys: The tailored design method. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394260645.
• 26. Couper MP. Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opin Q 2000, vol. 64, pp. 464–94. https://doi.org/10.1086/318641.
• 27. Hatcher L. Advanced statistics in research: Reading, understanding, and writing up data analysis results. Russellville, AR: Shadow Finch Media; 2013.
• 28. Bubalo T, Rajsman M, Škorput P. Methodological approach for evaluation and improvement of quality transport service in public road passenger transport. Teh Vjesn 2022, vol. 29, pp. 139-48. https://doi.org/10.17559/TV-20201031104641.
• 29. Grigoroudis E. Preference disaggregation for measuring and analysing customer satisfaction: The MUSA method. Eur J Oper Res 2002, vol. 143, pp. 148-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00332-0.
• 30. Guastello SJ. Human factors engineering and ergonomics: A systems approach. CRC Press; 2023.

Uwagi

1. W pdf'ie numer ORCID Dario Medić błędnie przypisny do Tomislav Bubalo.