Improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions remain key challenges for maritime transport. While most studies emphasize technical measures, the human factor’s impact on fuel consumption has received limited attention. This study addresses this gap by examining how human factors influence shipboard energy consumption. Using a qualitative case study approach, Fuzzy Logic and the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) methods to identify and analyze causal relationships among critical human-related determinants. Data gathered under comparable technical and environmental conditions enabled the isolation of behavioral effects. The findings reveal that substance use, living conditions, and crew health and well-being are the most influential factors affecting fuel consumption. The study expands the energy efficiency discourse by integrating behavioral perspectives into operational performance analysis. Practically, it suggests that improving living standards, providing health support, and enhancing crew awareness can mitigate unnecessary fuel use and reinforce sustainability efforts. Furthermore, the results offer valuable implications for policy development by linking human-centered interventions with broader maritime governance and decarbonization objectives. Overall, this research provides a systematic framework for understanding and managing the behavioral dimensions of ship energy efficiency.
JainKP.Impacts of energy efficiency design index, MSc Thesis, School of Marine Science and Technology, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK, 2012.
2.
IMO. Amendments to the Annex of the Protocol of 1997 to Amend the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as Modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto: Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (Inclusion of regulations on energy efficiency for ships), MEPC203(62), 2011.
3.
IMO. Amendments to the Annex of the Protocol of 1997 to Amend the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as Modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto: Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (Prohibition on the carriage of non-compliant fuel oil), MEPC305(73), 2018.
4.
IMO. 2019 Guidelines for Consistent Implementation of the 0.50% Sulphur Limit Under MARPOL Annex VI, MEPC320(74), 2019.
5.
IMO. Amendments to the Annex of the Protocol of 1997 to Amend the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as Modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto: Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (Data collection system for fuel oil consumption of ships), MEPC278(70), 2016.
6.
IMO. 2017 Guidelines for Administration Verification of Ship Fuel Oil Consumption Data, MEPC292(71), 2017.
7.
IMO. Global Integrated Shipping Information System (GISIS) – IMO Ship Fuel Oil Consumption Database Module, Circular Letter No. 3827, 2018.
8.
IMO. Guidelines for Voluntary Use of the Ship Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI), MEPC.1/Circ.684, 2009.
INTERTANKO and OCIMF. Virtual arrival: optimising voyage management and reducing vessel emissions – an emissions management framework. 2nd ed. Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) and INTERTANKO, 2011.
12.
BialystockiNKonovessisD.On the estimation of ship’s fuel consumption and speed curve: a statistical approach. J Ocean Eng Sci2016; 1(2): 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joes.2016.02.001
13.
MoonDSHWooJK.The impact of port operations on efficient ship operation from both economic and environmental perspectives. Marit Pol Manage2014; 41(5): 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2014.931607
14.
KuzuACArslanO.Analytic comparison of different mooring systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th annual general assembly of the international association of maritime universities, Varna, Bulgaria, 2017, pp. 265–274.
15.
JohnsonHStyhreL.Increased energy efficiency in short sea shipping through decreased time in port. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract2015; 71: 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.11.008
16.
BaldaufMBaumlerRÖlçerA, et al. Energy-efficient ship operation – training requirements and challenges. TransNav Int J Mar Navig Saf Sea Transp2013; 7(2): 283–290.
17.
PremathilakaWHV.Determining the factors affecting the turnaround time of container vessels: a case study on Port of Colombo, World Maritime University Dissertations600, 2018. https://commons.wmu.se/all_dissertations/600 (accessed 17 September 2025).
18.
MahmudMIChoHM.A review on characteristics, advantages and limitations of palm oil biofuel. Int J Glob Warming2018; 14(1): 81–96.
19.
CariouP.Is slow steaming a sustainable means of reducing CO2 emissions from container shipping?. Transp Res D Transp Environ2011; 16: 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.12.005
20.
BaldiFJohnsonHGabrieliiC, et al. Energy and exergy analysis of ship energy systems. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and environmental impact of energy systems, 2014, Vol. 1, pp. 175–187. https://doi.org/10.5541/ijot.5000070299
21.
BallandOErikstadSOFagerholtK. Concurrent design of vessel machinery system and air emission controls to meet future air emissions regulations. Ocean Eng2014; 84: 283–292.
22.
SeddiekISElgoharyMM.Eco-friendly selection of ship emissions reduction strategies with emphasis on SOx and NOx emissions. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng2014; 6: 737–748.
23.
IMO. 2016 Guidelines for the Development of a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP), MEPC282(70), 2016.
24.
YooBKimJ.Probabilistic modeling of ship powering performance using full-scale operational data. Appl Ocean Res2019; 82: 1–9.
25.
LiBHeYPQianZY, et al. Research on performance matching of intake and exhaust ports of marine medium speed dual fuel engine. Energy Rep2021; 7: 72–83.
26.
LindstadHAsbjørnslettBEStrømmanAH.Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and cost by shipping at lower speeds. Energy Policy2011; 39: 3456–3464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.044
27.
DegiuliNMartićIFarkasA, et al. The impact of slow steaming on reducing CO2 emissions in the Mediterranean Sea. Energy Rep2021; 7: 8131–8141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.02.046
28.
LiXSunBGuoC, et al. Speed optimization of a container ship on a given route considering voluntary speed loss and emissions. Appl Ocean Res2020; 94: 101995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2019.101995
HelgasonRCookDDavíðsdóttirB.An evaluation of the cost-competitiveness of maritime fuels – a comparison of heavy fuel oil and methanol (renewable and natural gas) in Iceland. Sustain Prod Consumption2020; 23: 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.06.007
31.
Al-EnaziAOkonkwoECBicerY, et al. A review of cleaner alternative fuels for maritime transportation. Energy Rep2021; 7: 1962–1985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.03.036
32.
KimSHRohMIOhMJ, et al. Estimation of ship operational efficiency from AIS data using big data technology. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng2020; 12: 440–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2020.03.007
33.
TilligFMaoWRingsbergJ.Systems modelling for energy-efficient shipping. Report No. 15:153, Chalmers University of Technology, 2015.
34.
LinYHFangMCYeungRW.The optimization of ship weather-routing algorithm based on the composite influence of multi-dynamic elements. Appl Ocean Res2013; 43: 184–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2013.07.010
35.
FangMCLinYH.The optimization of ship weather-routing algorithm based on the composite influence of multi-dynamic elements (II): optimized routings. Appl Ocean Res2015; 50: 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2014.12.005
36.
YuanYLiZMalekianR, et al. Analysis of the operational ship energy efficiency considering navigation environmental impacts. J Mar Eng Technol2017; 16(3): 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2017.1307716
ÖzdemirÜYazirDBalamanD.A hybrid MCDM approach for optimizing fuel consumption and mitigating air pollution in shipping: a case study using DEMATEL and ANP. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part M: J Eng Marit Environ2026; 240(1): 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/14750902251339272
BaumlerRArceMCPazaverA. Quantification of influence and interest at IMO in maritime safety and human element matters. Mar Pol2021; 133: 104746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104746
41.
ZoubirMGrunerMSchwarzB, et al. Charting the course: human factors research for shipping energy-efficient operations. In: Proceedings of the AHFE international conference on human factors, 2023, Vol. 115, pp. 403–412. https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1004338
42.
ZoubirMSchwarzBHeidingerJ, et al. Anchoring autonomy: understanding seafarers’ interaction with energy efficiency decision support systems for route planning and the role of basic psychological needs. Cogn Technol Work2025; 27(1–2): 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-025-00789-7
43.
BayraktarMMollaogluMYukselO.Scientometric analysis of energy efficiency indicators in maritime transportation: a systematic state-of-the-art review and implications. Sustainability2025; 17(8): 3612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083612
44.
AkyuzECelikE.A fuzzy DEMATEL method to evaluate critical operational hazards during gas freeing process in crude oil tankers. J Loss Prev Process Ind2015; 38: 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2015.10.006
45.
AtaşMDemirelH.Ensuring safety and reliability in offshore operations: A fuzzy DEMATEL study on dynamic positioning system hazards. Ocean Eng2025; 337: 121884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2025.121884
ManglaSKKumarPBaruaMK.A fuzzy DEMATELbased approach for evaluation of risks in green initiatives in supply chain. Int J Logist Syst Manag2016; 24(2): 226–243.
GabusAFontelaE.World problems: an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Battelle Geneva Research Centre, 1972.
50.
SiSLYouXYLiuHC, et al. DEMATEL technique: a systematic review of the state-of-the-art literature on methodologies and applications. Math Probl Eng2018; 2018: 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3696457
51.
CelikEAkyuzE.Application of interval type-2 fuzzy sets dematel methods in maritime transportation: the case of ship collision. Int J Marit Eng2021; 158(A4): 359–372. https://doi.org/10.5750/ijme.v158ia4.1005
52.
TsengMLLinYH.Application of fuzzy DEMATEL to develop a cause and effect model of municipal solid waste management in Metro Manila. Environ Monit Assess2009; 158: 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0601-2
MentesAAkyildizHYetkinM, et al. A FSA based fuzzy DEMATEL approach for risk assessment of cargo ships at coasts and open seas of Turkey. Saf Sci2015; 79: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.05.004
International Labour Organization (ILO). Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention Programmes in the Maritime Industry, https://www.ilo.org/… (2001, accessed 27 September 2025).
57.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). Interim Guidelines for the Application of Human Element Analysing Process (HEAP) to the IMO Rule-Making Process, MSC/Circ.878, MEPC/Circ.346, 1998.
58.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). Guidance on Fatigue Mitigation and Management, MSC/Circ.1014, 2001.
59.
RossTJ.Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. McGraw-Hill, 1995.
IMO. Guidance on prevention of drug and alcohol Abuse. STCW Code, 2010.
63.
PougnetRPougnetLLoddéB, et al. Consumption of addictive substances in mariners. Int Marit Health2014; 65(4): 199–204.
64.
SampsonHEllisNAcejoI, et al. The working and living conditions of seafarers on cargo ships 2011–2016. Project Report, Seafarers International Research Centre, Cardiff University, 2018.
65.
ILO. Maritime labour convention, 2006.
66.
CarotenutoAMolinoIFasanaroAM, et al. Psychological stress in seafarers: a review. Int Marit Health2012; 63(4): 188–194.
