End-user and stakeholder views on selected risk assessment tools for marine oil spill preparedness and response, including future research and development needs

• Autorzy: Goerlandt F. , Laine V. , Bal-Beşikçi E. , Baldauf M. , Al-Quhali M. A. , Koldenhof Y.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12716/1001.13.01.22

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Risks in the maritime domain have various sources, of which the transportation of oil and other noxious products is one of key concern to industry and public stakeholders. Operational or accidental releases of oil or other pollutants from ships or offshore facilities into the marine environment can have disastrous effects on the marine ecosystems, while also leading to very significant economical losses. Therefore, national states have implemented various mechanisms for preventing and responding to pollution in the maritime domain, with activities which are often embedded in regional cooperation frameworks clustered around certain sea areas. To support collaborative, harmonized, and risk-informed oil spill Pollution Preparedness and Response (PPR) planning for response authorities, the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM), together with its research partners, and with extensive end-user and stakeholder inputs, have developed the OpenRisk Toolbox. This toolbox includes several risk assessment tools and techniques, which can assist in providing answers to a range of PPR risk management questions in a range of organizational contexts. To better understand and ensure the applicability and usefulness of the OpenRisk Toolbox, a workshop was organized where some of these tools were tested. Selected end user and stakeholder views on the perceived usefulness of the tools were collected and analyzed. Another workshop focused on further development needs to implement the tools in organizational practices. This paper first presents the OpenRisk Toolbox, then describes the settings of the workshops. Finally, a summary of the end-user and stakeholder views on the tested tools, and on future development needs, is given.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

oil spill; risk assessment; marine oil spill; oil spill response; risk assessment tools; Pollution Preparedness and Response (PPR); Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM); marine environment

• Wydawca: Faculty of Navigation, Gdynia Maritime University
• Czasopismo: TransNav : International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: Vol. 13, no. 1
• Strony: 213--220
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 34 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Goerlandt F.

• Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Halifax, Canada
• Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM), Helsinki, Finland
• Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

autor

Laine V.

• Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM), Helsinki, Finland
• Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

autor

Bal-Beşikçi E.

• World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden
• Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

autor

Baldauf M.

• World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden
• Hochschule Wismar, University of Applied Sciences: Technology, Business and Design, Wismar, Germany

autor

Al-Quhali M. A.

• World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden

autor

Koldenhof Y.

• Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN), Wageningen, The Netherlands

Bibliografia

• 1. Aps, R., Fetissov, M., Goerlandt, F., Kopti, M., Kujala, P. (2016). STAMP-Mar based safety management of maritime navigation in the Gulf of Finland (Baltic Sea), European Navigation Conference 2016, Helsinki 30.0502.06 2016, IEEE Xplore, pp.1-8.
• 2. ARMS WG. (2010). The ARMS Methodology for Operational Risk Assessment in Aviation Organisations. SkyBrary, 67 p.
• 3. ARPEL. (2017). Oil Spill Response Planning and Readiness Assessment Manual V 2.1
• 4. Boardman, N.E. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis: concepts and practice (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice Hall, ISBN-0-13-143583-3
• 5. Bonn Agreement. (2014). BE-AWARE: Summary report. [Online]. www.bonnagreement.org/site/assets/files/1129/beaware_summary_report_final.pdf [Accessed 3.11.2018].
• 6. BSEE. (2018). Response system planning calculators. [Online] https://bsee.gov/what-we-do/oil-spillpreparedness/response-system-planning-calculators [Accessed 03.11.2018].
• 7. CGE RMS. (2017) CGE Risk Management Solution. BowTieXP Software User Manual.
• 8. COWI. (2011). BRISK: Sub-regional risk of spill of oil and hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea. COWI A/S, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark. Report No. P-070618.1.9.
• 9. EC. (2016). Action Plan on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: a disaster riskinformed approach for all EU policies. European Commission SWD (2016)205 final/2.
• 10. Garza-Gill M.D., Prada-Blanco A., Vázquez-Rodríguez M.X. (2006). Estimating the short-term economic damages from the Prestige oil spill in the Galician fisheries and tourism. Ecological Economics 58:842-849.
• 11. Gill, D.A., Picou J.S., Ritchie L.A. (2011). The Exxon Valdez and BP oil spills: A comparison of initial social and psychological impacts. American Behavioral Scientist 56(1):3-23.
• 12. Goerlandt, F., Khakzad, N., Reniers, G. (2017). Special Issue: risk analysis validation and trust in risk management. Safety Science 99(B):123-126.
• 13. Goerlandt, F., Kujala, P. (2014a). On the reliability and validity of ship–ship collision risk analysis in light of different perspectives on risk. Safety Science 62: 348–65
• 14. Goerlandt, F., Montewka, J., Kujala, P. (2014b). On the need for next generation maritime transportation risk models – a case study concerning reliability of ship collision risk assessment. International Workshop on Next Generation Nautical Traffic Models, Wuhan, P.R. China. 10.2014.
• 15. Goerlandt, F., Reniers, G. (2016). On the assessment of uncertainty in risk diagrams. Safety Science 84:67-77.
• 16. HELCOM. (2018). HELCOM Assessment on maritime activities in the Baltic Sea 2018. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No.152. Helsinki Commission, Helsinki. 253pp.
• 17. Helle, I., Jolma, A., Venesjärvi, R. (2016). Species and habitats in danger: estimating a relative risk posed by oil spills in the northern Baltic Sea. Ecosphere 7(5):e01344.
• 18. Hollnagel, E. (2012). FRAM – The Functional Resonance Analysis Method. Farnham, UK. Ashgate.
• 19. IALA. (2017). The use of IALA waterway risk assessment programme (IWRAP MKII). IALA Guideline G1123, Edition 1.0. The International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities, Saint Germaine en Laye, France
• 20. ISO. (2018). ISO31000:2018. Risk management guidelines. International Organization for Standardization.
• 21. ITOPF. (2017). Oil tanker spill statistics 2017. [Online]. Available at: www.itopf.org/knowledge-resources/datastatistics/statistics/ [Accessed 3.11.2018].
• 22. Koldenhof, Y., Nijsse, H., van der Tak, C., Glansdorp, C.C. (2010). Risk analysis as an integrated operational and legal instrument with respect to the safety of maritime traffic. Proceedings of the conference Risk Analysis VII, WITpress PI-245-PI-256.
• 23. Kystverket. (2018). Norwegian Costal Administration. 2018. Automated calculation of risk related to ship traffic
• 24. Liungman, O., Mattson J. (2011). Scientific documentation of Seatrack Web; physical processes, algorithms and references [Online] https://www.smhi.se [Accessed 3.11.2018
• 25. MEDESS-4MS. (2018). Mediterranean Decision Support System for Marine Safety. [Online] www.medess4ms.eu [Accessed 3.11.2018].
• 26. Melchers R.E. (2001). On the ALARP approach to risk management. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 71(2):201-208.
• 27. OpenRisk. (2018). OpenRisk guideline for regional risk management to improve European pollution preparedness and response at sea. [Online] Available at: www.openrisk-ppr.org [Accessed 3.11.2018]
• 28. Ösbaş, B. (2013). Safety risk analysis of maritime transportation: a review of the literature. Transportation Research Record, the Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2326:32-38
• 29. Praetorius, G., Graziano, A., Schröder-Hinrichs, J., Baldauf, M. (2017). FRAM in FSA : Introducing a Function-Based Approach to the Formal Safety Assessment Framework. Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation: Proceedings of the AHFE 2016 International Conference on Human Factors in Transportation, July 27-31, 2016, Walt Disney World®, Florida, USA. 399-411
• 30. Tabri, K., Heinvee, M., Laanearu J., Kollo, M., Goerlandt, F. (2018). An online platform for rapid oil outflow assessment from grounded tankers for pollution response. Marine Pollution Bulletin 135:963-976.
• 31. Teal, J.M., Howarth, R.W. (1984). Oil spill studies: A review of ecological effects. Environmental Management 8(1):27-43
• 32. UNCTAD. (2018) Review of Maritime Transport 2018 – 50th Anniversary Edition (1968-2018), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD/RMT/2018.
• 33. USCG. (2018). Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment Workshop Guide. Navigation Center, United States Coast Guard. [Online] https://www.navcen.uscg.gov [Accessed 3.11.2018]
• 34. Zaloom, V., Subhedar, V. (2008). Use of the Delphi Method to Prioritize Events Impacting Operations in the Maritime Domain. Lamar University, Texas, US

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2019).