A Bayesian network–based risk analysis approach is proposed to analyse the risk factors influencing maritime transport accidents. Comparing with previous studies in the relevant literature, it reveals new features including (1) new primary data directly derived from maritime accident records by two major databanks Marine Accident Investigation Branch and Transportation Safety Board of Canada from 2012 to 2017, (2) rational classification of the factors with respect to each of the major types of maritime accidents for effective prevention, and (3) quantification of the extent to which different combinations of the factors influence each accident type. The network modelling the interdependency among the risk factors is constructed by using a naïve Bayesian network and validated by sensitivity analysis. The results reveal that the common risk factors among different types of accidents are ship operation, voyage segment, ship type, gross tonnage, hull type, and information. Scenario analysis is conducted to predict the occurrence likelihood of different types of accidents under various situations. The findings provide transport authorities and ship owners with useful insights for maritime accident prevention.
Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty. Safety and shipping review 2017. Munich: Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty, 2018.
2.
TzannatosE.Human element and accidents in Greek shipping. J Navigat2010; 63: 119–127.
3.
FanSZhangJBlanco-DavisE, et al. Effects of seafarers’ emotion on human performance using bridge simulation. Ocean Eng2018; 170: 111–119.
4.
SafahaniM.Human errors and non-technical skills. Tehran, Iran: IRISL Maritime Training Institute, 2015.
5.
Marine Accident Investigation Branch. Bridge watchkeeping safety study. Southampton: Department for Transportation, Marine Accident Investigation Branch, 2004.
6.
HanninenMKujalaP.Influences of variables on ship collision probability in a Bayesian belief network model. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2012; 102: 27–40.
7.
MacraeC.Human factors at sea: common patterns of error in groundings and collisions. Marit Policy Manage2009; 36: 21–38.
8.
UğurluÖKöseEYıldırımU, et al. Marine accident analysis for collision and grounding in oil tanker using FTA method. Marit Policy Manage2015; 42: 163–185.
9.
FabianoBCurròFReverberiAP, et al. Port safety and the container revolution: a statistical study on human factor and occupational accidents over the long period. Safe Sci2010; 48: 980–990.
10.
PristromSYangZWangJ, et al. A novel flexible model for piracy and robbery assessment of merchant ship operations. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2016; 155: 196–211.
11.
ZhangJFTeixeiraAPSoaresCG, et al. Maritime transportation risk assessment of Tianjin port with Bayesian belief networks. Risk Anal2016; 36: 1171–1187.
12.
WangLYangZ.Bayesian network modelling and analysis of accident severity in waterborne transportation: a case study in China. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2018; 180: 277–289.
13.
BouejlaAChazeXGuarnieriF, et al. A Bayesian network to manage risks of maritime piracy against offshore oil fields. Safe Sci2014; 68: 222–230.
14.
BalmatJFLafontFMaifretR, et al. A decision-making system to maritime risk assessment. Ocean Eng2011; 38: 171–176.
15.
ChauvinCLardjaneSMorelG, et al. Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accid Anal Prev2013; 59: 26–37.
KumSSahinB.A root cause analysis for Arctic Marine accidents from 1993 to 2011. Safe Sci2015; 74: 206–220.
18.
SoaresCGTeixeiraAP.Risk assessment in maritime transportation. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2001; 74: 299–309.
19.
WengJYangD.Investigation of shipping accident injury severity and mortality. Accid Anal Prev2015; 76: 92–101.
20.
HeijCKnappS.Evaluation of safety and environmental risk at individual ship and company level. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ2012; 17: 228–236.
21.
BalmatJFLafontFMaifretR, et al. MAritime RISk Assessment (MARISA), a fuzzy approach to define an individual ship risk factor. Ocean Eng2009; 36: 1278–1286.
22.
ZhangDYanXPYangZL, et al. Incorporation of formal safety assessment and Bayesian network in navigational risk estimation of the Yangtze River. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2013; 118: 93–105.
23.
YipTLJinDTalleyWK.Determinants of injuries in passenger vessel accidents. Accid Anal Prev2015; 82: 112–117.
24.
TalleyWKNgM.Port economic cost functions: a service perspective. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev2016; 88: 1–10.
25.
VentikosNPPsaraftisHN.Spill accident modeling: a critical survey of the event-decision network in the context of IMO’s formal safety assessment. J Hazard Mater2004; 107: 59–66.
26.
WuBZongLYanX, et al. Incorporating evidential reasoning and TOPSIS into group decision-making under uncertainty for handling ship without command. Ocean Eng2018; 164: 590–603.
27.
WuBYipTLYanX, et al. Fuzzy logic based approach for ship-bridge collision alert system. Ocean Eng2019; 187: 106152.
28.
WangYZioEWeiX, et al. A resilience perspective on water transport systems: the case of Eastern Star. Int J Disast Risk Reduct2019; 33: 343–354.
29.
WanCYanXZhangD, et al. An advanced fuzzy Bayesian-based FMEA approach for assessing maritime supply chain risks. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev2019; 125: 222–240.
30.
ZhangDYanXPYangZL, et al. An accident data-based approach for congestion risk assessment of inland waterways: a Yangtze River case. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2014; 228: 176–188.
31.
MontewkaJEhlersSGoerlandtF, et al. A framework for risk assessment for maritime transportation systems–a case study for open sea collisions involving RoPax vessels. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2014; 124: 142–157.
32.
ChenSTWallADaviesP, et al. A Human and Organisational Factors (HOFs) analysis method for marine casualties using HFACS-Maritime Accidents (HFACS-MA). Safe Sci2013; 60: 105–114.
33.
AkhtarMJUtneIB.Human fatigue’s effect on the risk of maritime groundings – a Bayesian Network modeling approach. Safe Sci2014; 62: 427–440.
34.
WeberPMedina-OlivaGSimonC, et al. Overview on Bayesian networks applications for dependability, risk analysis and maintenance areas. Eng Appl Artif Intell2012; 25: 671–682.
35.
KhakzadNKhanFAmyotteP.Safety analysis in process facilities: comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network approaches. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2011; 96: 925–932.
36.
MahadevanSZhangRSmithN.Bayesian networks for system reliability reassessment. Struct Safe2001; 23: 231–251.
37.
BobbioAPortinaleLMinichinoM, et al. Improving the analysis of dependable systems by mapping fault trees into Bayesian networks. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2001; 71: 249–260.
38.
TruccoPCagnoERuggeriF, et al. A Bayesian Belief Network modelling of organisational factors in risk analysis: a case study in maritime transportation. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2008; 93: 823–834.
39.
MontaniSPortinaleLBobbioA, et al. A tool for automatically translating dynamic fault trees into dynamic Bayesian networks. In: Proceedings of the RAMS ’06 annual reliability and maintainability symposium, 2006, Newport Beach, CA, 23–26 January 2006, pp.434–441. New York: IEEE.
40.
YangZSYangZLYinJB.Realising advanced risk-based port state control inspection using data-driven Bayesian networks. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract2018; 110: 38–56.
41.
FuSSZhangDMontewkaJ, et al. Towards a probabilistic model for predicting ship besetting in ice in Arctic waters. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2016; 155: 124–136.
42.
BakshAAAbbassiRGaraniyaV, et al. Marine transportation risk assessment using Bayesian Network: application to Arctic waters. Ocean Eng2018; 159: 422–436.
43.
LiuKZZhangJFYanXP, et al. Safety assessment for inland waterway transportation with an extended fuzzy TOPSIS. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2016; 230: 323–333.
44.
CastaldoFPalmieriFANRegazzoniCS.Bayesian analysis of behaviors and interactions for situation awareness in transportation systems. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst2016; 17: 313–322.
45.
ThiemeCAUtneIB.A risk model for autonomous marine systems and operation focusing on human-autonomy collaboration. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2017; 231: 446–464.
46.
ZhangGZThaiVV.Expert elicitation and Bayesian Network modeling for shipping accidents: a literature review. Safe Sci2016; 87: 53–62.
47.
PearlJ.Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems (vol. 23). San Mateo, CA: Kaufmann, 1988, pp.33–34.
48.
WanCYangZZhangD, et al. Resilience in transportation systems: a systematic review and future directions. Transp Rev2018; 38: 479–498.
49.
LiuQTchanganiAPeresF, et al. Object-oriented Bayesian network for complex system risk assessment. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2018; 232: 340–351.
AlyamiHYangZRiahiR, et al. Advanced uncertainty modelling for container port risk analysis. Accid Anal Prev2019; 123: 411–421.
52.
YangZLWangJBonsallS, et al. Use of fuzzy evidential reasoning in maritime security assessment. Risk Anal2009; 29: 95–120.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
