Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

2013 to August 2016, by industry, the highest number of accidents occurred in the
manufacturing industry (6847 cases). It is followed by the agriculture, foresting, logging and
fishing industry (1812 cases), the construction industry (717 cases), and the transport, storage
and communication industry (432 cases). Since the manufacturing industry contributes the
highest number of accidents in Malaysia, massive studies have been conducted by researchers
such as [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] to investigate and propose a solution to improve accident
prevention in the manufacturing industry of Malaysia. However, less attention was directed to
the transportation, storage, and communication industry. This statement was supported by
Auyong et al. [6]. The previous studies conducted in the transport, storage and
communication industry in Malaysia are not as significant as other industries.
In the year 2016, there have been three fatality cases recorded in ports. This number
increased compared to last year, which only recorded 1 case. Even the amount of cases is
small compared to other industries such as the construction industry (55 cases), the
agriculture, forest, logging, and fishing industry (14 cases) and the manufacturing industry
(32 cases), but the fact that the workplace may not be safe as accidents and fatalities have
happened should not be ignored. If fatalities happen, it shows that there is a possibility that
near-miss accidents or any other accidents may happen. This is based on Heinrich’s accident
model theory, where if one serious or fatality case has happened, then there will be at least
twenty-nine minor injury cases, three hundred near-miss accidents, and three thousand unsafe
acts and conditions predicted to happen. This was approved by Gnoni and Salleh [9]. This
shows that necessary countermeasures should be performed to prevent the same accidents
from happening again in the future.
The massive development of the port industry does not align with the development of port
safety management systems [10]. Major accidents such as the warehouse explosion in 2015 at
the Tianjin port are still happening. Ng et al. [11] found that many accidents have happened
while handling cargoes at port, especially if the activity involves manual handling, as the
employees are directly exposed to hazards and risks. The variety of complex activities
performed in port terminals include passenger transport, cargo and container handling, oil and
chemicals storage, vehicle storage and transport, ship, lorry and train circulation, all of which
create risks and hazards. These risks and hazards are exposed to persons such as the crew,
passengers, port users and port workers, the environment (nature) and property such as ships,
port facilities, and port labour, and others [12]. If it is not managed and controlled, it would
create unwanted events like unsafe acts and conditions [9], which will eventually cause major
accidents such as fatalities. These activities have their own risks and need to be assessed and
evaluated to place appropriate control measures to prevent accidents.
Risk assessment in the port industry is necessary. This is because the port is considered as
a high-risk industry [18]. Previously, much port safety research focused on maritime risk
issues which mainly suggested the need for developing a rigid and efficient qualitative and
quantitative risk assessment approaches that prioritizes hazards at ports. However, there are
relatively few studies on port safety and risks that focused on port terminal activities [15,19]
as many other authors only focused on maritime risks which covers ship operations and ship
collisions at any area of the sea or anchorage.
Risk assessment is one of the main components of an effective safety management system
and accident prevention. An effective risk assessment in terms of implementation and
framework is necessary to support the idea of an effective safety management system.
Previous literature has highlighted many gaps in terms of frameworks, scopes, and
methodology in managing accidents in a high-risk industry, especially in organizations with a
complex operational system, such as in the port industry. This gap needs to be closed to
ensure that the dynamic implementation of the theory is established and fully developed.

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJMET 813 [email protected]

 Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty
Amrin

on quantitative data rather than qualitative opinions. The quantitative techniques are
compliments to qualitative techniques. As time has passed, many frameworks were
established by researchers in combining the two methods in managing risks. The objectives of
this combination are to close the gap of disadvantages of both methods. Many improvements
in managing risks have been made by researchers. However, there are also a few researchers
still using only one of the methods to prove the effectiveness of their theory. Most of them are
still acceptable; however, there will be some limitations. The key objectives of managing risk
are to prevent accidents from happening.
Advanced risk assessments that combines qualitative and quantitative methods, such as
Fuzzy failure mode effect analysis, is very popular these days. Improved risk assessment
techniques were established by researchers by combining the two methods of qualitative and
quantitative analysis in managing risk. Thus, the terms “fuzzy failure mode effect analysis”
[71], fuzzy Bayesian model [52], and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process [29] were introduced.
Francesco Castaldo [78] presented a framework based on Bayesian networks for the
surveillance of public transportation sites. The analysis of behaviors and interactions allow a
reduced but exhaustive picture of the state of the observed scenarios. The system could
represent a useful support for human operators in charge of large and crowded areas such as
ports, canals, or airports, where often, a single person must check many monitors and
indicators related to the same area at the same time. Goerlandt and Kujala [73] also used
quantitative risk techniques. They analyzed the reliability of quantitative risk analysis through
a case study of ship–ship collision risk analysis for a given seaport area. It was found that the
probability and indicator-based risk perspectives do not necessarily provide the same risk
picture when the analysis is repeated. It varies with the factor and input respectively.
An example of another technique is the Analytical Hierarchal Process. It is a structured
multi-attribute decision method. This technique was used to facilitate decisions made under
risky or uncertain situations. The main advantage of the Analytical Hierarchal Process is its
capability to check and reduce the inconsistency of expert judgments. While reducing bias in
the decision-making process, this method provides group decision-making through a
consensus using the geometric mean of the individual judgments. The Analytical Hierarchal
Process derives scales of values from pairwise comparisons in conjunction with ratings and is
suitable for multi-objective, multi-criteria, and multi-actor decisions with any number of
alternatives. Mabrouki et al. [68] used this technique to describe the problem of operational
risk management within the RO–RO activity at port terminals, which is a real application of
the multi-criteria approach and a critical analysis method. He implemented three steps, where
the first step is to define and identify the risk factors via the brainstorming approach. In this
stage, we can define a list of major risks. The second step aims to describe the risks
quantitatively to determine the level and the nature of the risks using an analysis. Finally, the
development of criteria and their weighting, where the most probable risks are assessed under
the analytical hierarchal analysis method. This study proposed a strong tool for the decision
makers to prepare preventive action plans for the most critical risks. The objectives of this
combination are to close the gap of disadvantages of both qualitative and quantitative
methods. However, there are a few researchers still using only one of the methods to prove
the effectiveness of their theory. Most of them are still acceptable; however, there will be
some limitations.
Even when comparing the qualitative and quantitative methods, in the complex and rapid
development of the port industry, the semi-quantitative risk analysis still seems to be the more
realistic approach. The semi-quantitative risk assessment approach provides an intermediate
level between the textual evaluation of qualitative risk assessment and the numerical
evaluation of quantitative risk assessment by evaluating risks with a score. The semi-

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJMET 828 [email protected]

 Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

quantitative method is more frequently used in estimating risks than the quantitative method
[70]. The advantages of a semi-quantitative risk assessment are that this method is the most
useful for providing a structured way to rank risks (according to their probability and impact)
and for ranking the effectiveness of risk-reduction actions. This is achieved through a
predefined scoring system that allows one to place perceived risks into categories, where there
is a logical and explicit hierarchy between them. Semi-quantitative risk assessment offers the
advantage of being able to evaluate a larger number of risk issues than quantitative risk
assessment because a full mathematical model is unnecessary, especially in the port industry.
The semi-quantitative risk assessment approach provides an intermediate level between
the textual evaluation of qualitative risk assessment and the numerical evaluation of
quantitative risk assessment by evaluating risks with a score. The analysis is more easily
practiced. It has been argued that the semi-quantitative method is more frequently used in
estimating risks than the quantitative method [70]. Semi-quantitative risk assessment is most
useful for providing a structured way to rank risks according to their probability and impact
and for ranking the effectiveness of risk-reduction actions. This is achieved through a
predefined scoring system that allows one to place perceived risks into categories, where there
is a logical and explicit hierarchy between them.
Semi-quantitative risk assessment offers the advantage of being able to evaluate a larger
number of risk issues than quantitative risk assessment because a full mathematical model is
unnecessary. The classic risk matrix approach uses the multiplication of severity and
likelihood to produce a risk rating, where the risk category is then decided based on the risk
rating [12]. Based on the risk assessment, the organization will be able to identify and
evaluate the risk based on whether the risk is in the high or low category. This will be able to
help the organization focus on the most significant risks to be handled and consider the
suitable risk measure to be put in place.
Many researchers have been employed and proved the semi-quantitative risk assessment
techniques in their study to be effective, as in Table 6. Wijeratne et al. [74] used risk matrices
with two dimensions namely, the frequency of occurrence of an accident and the severity of
its consequences. Semi-quantitative analysis is the most preferred technique of stating risks in
the industry [74]. The simplified yet structured technique is easily implemented and adopted.
The risk calculator and the semi-quantitative risk rating matrix can be identified as the most
preferred methods for risk analysis [70]. The techniques are also easy to understand and
communicate. It is an advantage to apply this technique in such complex scenarios. The risk
matrix model is able to assess placement of risk levels in terms of risk analysis and
evaluation. The risk matrix model can help risk managers to develop highly efficient risk
management strategies across multiple risk levels in accordance with various risk factors,
which lessens loss occurrence rates and thereby reduce corporate financial impact [14]. The
simplicity of semi-quantitative techniques enables it to be implemented and conducted in
many industries. The risk matrix model can assess placement of risk levels in terms of risk
analysis and evaluation. The simplicity of semi-quantitative techniques helps it be
implemented and conducted by many industries
From Malaysian legislation perspectives, the employer’s responsibility in managing
occupational safety and health in the workplace is stressed. It believes that the responsibility
of the safety of an organization lies in the employer, as the exposure to hazards and risks were
created by them. Thus, most of the world’s organization has implemented risk management
systems not only in safety but also in their business overview to manage the risks within their
company. Risk matrix techniques have been applied and enforced by the Malaysian
Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) in their guidelines, which is the
Guidelines for Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control (HIRARC), 2005.

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJMET 829 [email protected]

 Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty
Amrin

This method classified and categorized the risks based on risk level, which categories are
usually named high, medium, and low. The risk control or control measure shall take place
based on the priority and urgency of the risk level. Other examples of qualitative risk
assessment are failure mode effect analysis. This technique focuses on failure impact by
multiplying the severity, detection, and occurrence to obtain a risk priority number. This is
one of the famous qualitative risk analysis techniques used back then, especially in high-risk
analysis.
The advantages of qualitative techniques are that it is easier to be conducted, it is able to
identify the priority and urgency of risks, and it is easily understood, as it is a simple
approach. These techniques usually require experience or an expert team in making decisions
on the risk severity and likelihood, which lead to disadvantages caused by human bias or
misjudgment. Many studies conducted have overcome the bias problem by suggesting a team
approach in conducting risk assessments, but still, these approaches do not necessarily reduce
the amount of subjectivity present in the process [68]. Besides, the technique also contributes
to subjectivity as every task or activities varies according to location, industry, organization,
and many more aspects. Meanwhile, the quantitative approach requires a systematic
framework or model that can quantify the likelihood of the risk. These techniques use
mathematics to calculate the probability of risks. The major advantage of quantifying the risks
is that it provides an adequate understanding of failure, consequences, and events, which are
difficult to explain by a qualitative approach. In addition, it is easy to understand the overall
process, reach the appropriate decision, and allocate resources based on quantitative data
rather than qualitative opinions. The quantitative techniques compliment qualitative
techniques.

Table 6 List of studies with research assessment techniques

No. Author, year Location Methodology Techniques Data
Pak, J. Y. et al., Fuzzy AHP
1 Korea port Qualitative Questionnaire
2015[29] Questionnaire
Accident data
Zhang et al., Qualitative and
2 Tianjin port analysis Bayesian Accident data
2016[52] Quantitative
Belief Networks
Fuzzy set theory
Mokhtari, K. et al., (FST) Qualitative and
3 Iranian Port Case study
2012 [72] Case Study Quantitative
sensitivity analysis
Mabrouki, C. et al. RO-RO port
4 AHP method Qualitative Statistical data
2014 [68] activity
Vidmar, P.and
Formal Safety
5 Perkovic. M., 2015 Port cruise Qualitative Statistical data
Assessment
[64]
Abdelhakim
Formal Safety
6 Bouzaher et al., Algerian port Qualitative Accident data
assessment
2015[13]
Montewka, J. et Formal Safety
7 Port Qualitative Case study
al., 2014 [57] Assessment
Lu, C.S and Kuo, hierarchical Qualitative and historical
8 Port
S.Y., 2016 [30] regression analysis Quantitative statistical data
Preben H. L. &
9 Kringen, J, Port Case study Qualitative Audit
2015[53]

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJMET 830 [email protected]

 Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

Wang et al., 2016

10 Port Statistical data Qualitative Historical data
[75]
Wen-Kai K. Hsu, Qualitative and
11 Port AHP and Fuzzy Historical data
2012[76] Quantitative
12 Lei, 2015[77] Port Case study Quantitative Case study
Castaldo,F. Topological map; Qualitative and
13 Port Experiment
2016[78] Bayesian model Quantitative
Perkovic, et al., Port-LNG
14 Statistics Qualitative AIS data
2012 [79] operation
DEMATEL Method,
Yang et. al., Qualitative and Questionnaire,
15 Port cause and effect
2014[80] Quantitative interview
diagram
Abderrahmane et
17 Port Statistics Qualitative Historical data
al.,2016 [81]
Antão, P. et Key Performance
18 Port Qualitative Sampling
al.2015 [58] Indicator
Esma Gül Emecen
19 Port Mathematics Quantitative Sampling
Kara, 2016 [82]
Akyuz et al., 2016 Fuzzy Failure Mode Qualitative and
20 Port Historical data
[71] Effect Analysis Quantitative
Adam, E. F. et al.,
21 Port Statistical Qualitative Historical data
2014[19]
Fabiano, B. et al.,
22 Port Statistical Qualitative Historical data
2010 [15]

9. EXPERT JUDGEMENT IN RISK ASSESSMENT

During the past recent years, risk assessment has been investigated by many researchers using
and relying on expert’s judgements. For example, Akyuz et al. [71] used fuzzy Failure mode
effect analysis and supported it with a rule-based expert system, which systematically
reconsiders potential failure modes and effects at the system level. Therefore, the proposed
approach transforms its database into a risk priority number (RPN) of system failures. Failure
Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a qualitative, systematic, and highly structured
technique that is used to investigate the way a system or system components can result in
performance problems. In 2012, Mokhtari et al. [72] proposed the fuzzy set theory using a
proposed generic risk evaluation model. First, risks levels of the 22 individual risk factors for
three Iranian ports were evaluated by using the Fuzzy Set Theory based on expert’s judgment.
The evolutions for three Iranian ports were synthesized by using evidence and reason to
derive the belief degrees of the same risk factors for the mentioned ports. In the last part, by
feeding the relative weights available from an illustrative example, along with the belief
degrees calculated through the proposed methodology using computer software, the overall
scores of the three nominated ports were calculated. By using an expert’s opinion, eventually,
the proposed methodology and model in the form of decision support can be implemented on
any specific port during the risk management cycle, auditing, port-to-port risk evaluations,
etc. They proposed that the methodology can help the port and terminal managers and
professionals. For example, port risk managers and port auditors can take corrective and
preventive actions at early stages of risks to defeat a variety of problems. Chlomoudis et al.
[12] collected the feedback from port experts and grouped the hazards into five group of risk
categories based on accident factor causes.

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJMET 831 [email protected]

 Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty
Amrin

Both qualitative and quantitative techniques usually require experience or an expert team
in making the decisions. In qualitative techniques, the expert’s judgement is often critical in
determining the risk’s severity and likelihood, which leads to disadvantages where it will
contribute to bias or misjudgment of humans. The complexity of quantitative risk analysis
might be easy for researchers, but Mou et al. [83] argued that implementation in the industry
would have varied outcomes. In order to conduct a quantitative risk assessment, the assessor
must be a statistics expert in calculating the risk using statistical mathematical methods. With
the rapid change in the development of the industry, the industry might not be able to catch
up. Many studies conducted overcame the bias problem by suggesting a team approach in
conducting risk assessments, but these approaches do not necessarily reduce the amount of
subjectivity present in the process.
In 2016, Kontogiannis et al. [42] argued that the risk assessment should require full
involvement from many parties, such as safety practitioners, managers, supervisors, and
technicians. In most cases, a risk assessment is performed on how jobs should be performed,
rather than on how they are performed in practice. Thus, critical alterations or abuse of
procedures are missed in this analysis. This can be avoided by conducting a participative risk
assessment that would involve people on all organizational levels in certain stages of the
analysis. It engages all levels at the organization, which serves as an advantage. Another
advantage of this approach would be that the workforce is encouraged to monitor emerging
hazards and report them, which can update and improve the results of the earlier analysis.
Finally, it would be easier to design safety measures and barriers that are compatible with the
competencies and preferences of workers when they are part of that process, hence enabling a
more efficient human-system interaction. The assessment of these risks is an opportunity to
initiate prevention measures to preserve port facilities, property, marine environments, and the
safety of the people at work.

10. CONTROL MEASURES: AS LOW AS REASONABLY APPLICABLE

(ALARP)
The control measure assessment of risks is essential in managing risk [86]. Risk tolerance
plays a critical role in risk management [75]. The risk control and safety enhancement process
concentrate on prioritized issues [69]. A control measure is part of a facility, including any
system, procedure, process, or device that intends to eliminate hazards, prevent hazardous
incidents from occurring, or reduces the severity of consequences of any incident that does
occur [83]. Control measures may be proactive, in that they eliminate, prevent, or reduce the
likelihood of incidents, or they may be reactive, in that they reduce the consequences of
incidents. Moreover, all risk is advised to be controlled under the ALARP (As Low as
Reasonably Practicable) principle [84], where once a level has been established for the risk
estimated, the levels are compared with previously established risk criteria to create a
prioritized list of risks to be controlled. The last step in risk assessment is risk control.
In traditional risk assessment, the risk control measure is decided based on the risk rating
and risk level after the risk is analyzed. When combined with an assessment of the severity of
the impact of a hazardous scenario, the risk of the scenario can be calculated. However,
neither likelihood nor impact severity alone can determine risk. Risk is the product of
likelihood and impact severity (consequence). Unfortunately, an absolute value of risk is of
little use [85]. It can be used to compare risks of different hazards, but it cannot be used to
decide if the risk is too high or low enough to be tolerated. It is only when compared to risk
tolerance criteria that a decision can be made on whether the risk of a hazard is too high, or if
it is low enough to be tolerated. Risk levels are unable to translate whether the conditions of a
risk is acceptable or not. It is difficult to ascertain to what extent risk can be reduced by such

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJMET 832 [email protected]

 Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

measures [56]. It is also the case that there are factors that cannot be controlled. Therefore,
even if the likelihood of accidents is brought down, from time to time they will happen
regardless. Studies suggest that the identification of strategies for accident reduction (that can
be made with the analysis of the proposed controls) was also contained in the risk assessment
methodology [12]. Other researchers assessed the control measures assessment of risks arising
from human factors in a previous research [86]. In the context of occupational health and
safety, risk control is categorized according to hierarchy, often simply called the “risk control
hierarchy.” This hierarchy helps people to decide which risk control to implement. Risk
control options at the top of the hierarchy are more preferred than those at the bottom of the
hierarchy. The preferred options are the most effective means of controlling risks because
they are much less reliant on people’s actions and they can protect a larger number of people.
Therefore, control measures should be considered and adopted in the order presented.
The evaluating stage of the risk assessment process involves assessing team decisions on
the most appropriate risk control strategy. The controllability of a risk is also important in the
attribution of risks. When it is perceived that a risk cannot be controlled, a fatalistic
resignation to the exposure to the risk may develop. Once a level has been established for the
risk estimated, the levels are compared with previously established risk criteria to create a
prioritized list of risks to be controlled. It may become an important task to identify and select
the relevant risk criteria for specifically estimated risks in a specific country and industry. In
2014, Yang et al. [78] agreed that risk criteria depend on the results of the risk analysis and
how risks are estimated.
Poor management and control of risks and hazard can also be a cause of accidents. The
organizations that are unable to manage and control risks and hazards in the workplace tend to
fail in managing accidents. Thus, the ideal solution for the reduction of accidents and to
implement effective occupational safety and health management is to manage and control the
risks of the hazards. This statement was agreed by Amyotte et al. [16], which found seven
core concepts in preventing major accidents in processing industries, and one of it is dynamic
operational risk management.
Many studies show the significance of risk management study an effective risk
management can decrease or at least minimize the number of accidents .The risk assessment
system can be considered as the leading indicator of safety. Thus, it is essential for risk to be
managed and controlled to reduce the accident rate. The implementation and effectiveness of
the risk assessment need an effort from the top to the bottom of the organization. It would not
be successful if there is no cooperation within the organization.

11. CONCLUSION
Risk analysis or risk assessment, which are part of a risk management system and other
elements of a risk management system involves a systematic but laborious scientific process
that is usually smoothed by frameworks or techniques. In this paper, many different
frameworks and guidelines related to port risk safety were discussed and reviewed. The
comparisons, advantages, and limitations were discussed and summarized. It is important for
an organization to make the right choices, for it is an important step in risk analysis/
assessment. In the application of port risk safety management systems, especially in
Malaysian ports, there is still uncertainty regarding the availability of a standardized format
that has the capability to serve all types of systems and risks. However, the current
frameworks are being updated and reviewed from time to time to suit the current state of
development. It is recommended that future studies be conducted to review and investigate
the factors affecting the choices of an organization in port safety management, including the
resources available, data and information available, system and/or risk elements to be studied,

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJMET 833 [email protected]

 Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty
Amrin

legal and/or decision maker requirements, risk issues, and concerns. Studies on risk
assessment methodology types such as qualitative, quantitative, initial or preliminary study
methodologies may also be explored.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express the utmost appreciation and gratitude to the Ministry of Higher
Education, MyBrain15 MyPhD Ministry of Higher Education, UTM Razak School of
Engineering & Advanced Technology and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for all the
support given in making the study a success. VOTE UTM: Q.K130000.2540.17H87.

REFERENCES
[1] Abdullah, M. S., Othman, Y., Osman, A., & Salahudin, S. N. (2016). Safety culture
behaviour in electronics manufacturing sector (EMS) in Malaysia: The case of
Flextronics. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 454 – 461.
[2] Amin, Z., Mohammad, R., Abdul Aziz, S., & Othman, N. (2015). Workers’ safety
awareness level on hand related injury accident in metal fabrication industry. Journal of
Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, 1(1), 1-12.
[3] Chong, H. Y., & Lowa, T. S. (2014). Accidents in Malaysian construction industry:
Statistical data and court cases. Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 20(3),
503-513.
[4] Shamsuddin, K. A., Che Ani, M. N., & Osman, M. H. (2014). Developing accident
avoidance program for occupational safety and health. The International Journal of
Engineering and Science, 3(10), 62-68.
[5] Hee, O. E. (2014). Factors contribute to safety culture in the manufacturing industry in
Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences,
4(4), 63-69.
[6] Auyong, H., Zailani, S., & Surienty, L. (2011). Safety and health management in logistics:
literature review and future research. Journal of System and Management Sciences, 1 (3),
9-20.
[7] Kumar, R., Chelliah, T.D., Chelliah, M. K., & Amin, A. F. M. (2012). An analysis on
safety work culture in Malaysian manufacturing industry. BIOINFO Business
Management, 2 (1), 11-15.
[8] Said, S. M., Said, F., & Halim, Z. A. (2012). The determinants of industrial accidents in
the Malaysian manufacturing sector. African Journal of Business Management, 6(5),
1999-2006.
[9] Gnoni, M. G., & Saleh, J. H. (2013). Near-miss management systems and observability-
in-depth: Handling safety incidents and accident precursors in light of safety principles
Safety Science, 91,154–167.
[10] Zhao, B. (2016). Facts and lessons related to the explosion accident in Tianjin Port, China.
Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of
Natural Hazards, 84, 707-713.
[11] Ng, C. A., Berg, M. B., Jude, D. J., Janssen, J., Charlebois, P.M., Amaral, L. A. N., &
Ray, K. A.(2008). Chemical amplification in an invaded food web: seasonality and
ontogeny in a high-biomass, low-diversity ecosystem. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, 27, 10, 2186–2195.
[12] Chlomoudis, C. I., Kostagiolas, P. A., & Pallis, L. P. (2012). An Analysis for Formal Risk
and Safety Assessments for Ports: Empirical Evidence from Container Terminals in
Greece, Journal of Shipping and Ocean Engineering 2(1): 45-54.
[13] Constantinos, I., Chlomoudis, P. L., & Pallis, E. S. T. (2016). Port risk assessment
methodology for human accidents in container terminals: evidence from the port of

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJMET 834 [email protected]

 Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

Piraeus – Greece. International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering, 6(4), 368 –
377.
[14] Bouzaher, A., Bahmed, L., Furusho, M. & Fedila, M. (2015). Designing a risk assessment
matrix for Algerian Port operations. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, 15 (6),
860-867.
[15] Ding, J.F. and Tseng, W.J. (2013). Fuzzy risk assessment on safety operations for
exclusive container terminals at Kaohsiung port in Taiwan. Proceeding IMechE, Part M:
Journal Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 227(2), 208–220.
[16] Fabiano, B., Currò, F., Reverberi, A.P., & Pastorino, R. (2010). Port safety and the
container revolution: A statistical study on human factor and occupational accidents over
the long period. Safety Science, 48(8), 980-990.
[17] Amyotte, P. R., Berger, S., Edwards, D. W., Gupta, J.P., Hendershot, D. C., Khan, F.,
Mannan, M.S & Willey, R. J. (2016). Why major accidents are still occurring. Current
Opinion in Chemical Engineering, 14, 1–8.
[18] Inan, U. H., Gül, S., & Yılmaz., A. (2017). A multiple attribute decision model to
compare the firms’ occupational health and safety management perspectives. Safety
Science, 91, 221–231.
[19] Adam, E.F., Brown, S., & Nicholls, R.J. (2016). A systematic assessment of maritime
disruptions affecting UK ports, coastal areas and surrounding seas from 1950 to 2014.
Natural Hazards, 83, 691-703.
[20] Akyildiz, H. & Mentes, A. (2017). An integrated risk assessment based on uncertainty
analysis for cargo vessel safety. Safety science, 42, 34-43.
[21] Emovon, I., Norman, R. A, Murphy, A. J., & Pazouki, K. (2015). An integrated multi
criteria decision making methodology using compromise solution methods for prioritising
risk of marine machinery systems. Ocean Engineering, 105, 92–103.
[22] Bhandari, J., Abbassi, R., Garaniya, V., & Khan, F. (015). Risk analysis of deep-water
drilling operations using Bayesian network. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries, 38, 11-23.
[23] Thekdi, S., & Aven, T. (2016). An enhanced data-analytic framework for integrating risk
management and performance management. Reliability Engineering and System Safety,
156, 277–287.
[24] Tian, B., Gao, W., & Wang, Q. (2014). Studies on ships collision avoidance with SAPSO
arithmetic. Advanced Materials Research, 971-973, 1338-1342.
[25] Karahalios, H. (2014). The contribution of risk management in ship management: The
case of ship collision. Safety Science, 63, 104–114.
[26] Villa, V., Nicola Paltrinieri, N., Khan, F., & Cozzani, V. (2016). Towards dynamic risk
analysis: A review of the risk assessment approach and its limitations in the chemical
process industry. Safety Science, 89, 77–93.
[27] Inanloo, B., Tansel, B., Shams, K., Jin, X., & Gan, A. (2016). A decision aid GIS-based
risk assessment and vulnerability analysis approach for transportation and pipeline
networks. Safety Science, 84, 57–66.
[28] Bolat, P., & Yong, X. J. (2013). Risk assessment of potential catastrophic accidents for
transportation of special nuclear materials through Turkish Straits. Energy Policy, 56,
126–135.
[29] Pak, J. Y., Yeo, G.T., Oh, S. W., & Yang, Z. (2015). Port safety evaluation from a
captain’s perspective: The Korean experience Safety Science, 72, 172–181.
[30] Lu, C.S., & Kuo, S.Y. (2016). The effect of job stress on self-reported safety behaviour in
container terminal operations: The moderating role of emotional intelligence.
Transportation Research Part F, 37, 10–26.

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJMET 835 [email protected]

Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty
Amrin

[31] Joo, S. H., Hong, S. C., & Kim, N. J. (2016). Comparative study on Korean and
international chemical control regulations of the physical hazards of sodium cyanide and
hydrogen cyanide. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 44, 143-149.
[32] Sholihah, O., Hanafi, A.S., Bachri, A. A., & Fauzi, R. (2016). Ergonomics awareness as
efforts to increase knowledge and prevention of musculoskeletal disorders on fishermen.
Aquatic Procedia, 7, 187-194.
[33] Veselinovic, S. P., Hedge, A., & Veselinovic, M. (2016). An ergonomic expert system for
risk assessment of work-related musculo-skeletal disorders. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics, 53, 130-139.
[34] Nakayama, J., Sakamoto, J., Kasai, N., Shibutani, T., & Miyake, A. (2016). Preliminary
hazard identification for qualitative risk assessment on a hybrid gasoline-hydrogen fueling
station with an on-site hydrogen production system using organic chemical hydride.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41(18), 7518-7525.
[35] Huda, N. Z., Norudin, M., & Zalinawati, A. (2016). Workplace accident in Malaysia: most
common causes and solutions. Business and Management Review, 2(5), 75 – 88.
[36] Yang, Y. L., Ding, J. F., Chiu, C. C., Shyu, W. H., Tseng, W. J., & Chou, M. T. (2016).
Core risk factors influencing safe handling operations for container terminals at
Kaohsiung port. Journal Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 230(2), 444–453.
[37] AS/NZ ISO 31000: 2009 ‘Risk management- Principles and guidelines.
[38] Department of Occupational Safety and Health Malaysia. Guidelines of Hazard
Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control (2005).
[39] International standard organization. Occupational Health and Safety Management System
(OHSAS 18001) 2015.
[40] Guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process
international maritime organization 2002, Available from: International Maritime
organization.
[41] Lee, K.N., Kwon, H. M., Cho, S. S., Kim, J. Y., & Moon, I. (2016). Improvements of
safety management system in Korean chemical industry after a large chemical accident.
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 42, 6-13.
[42] Kontogiannis, T., Leva, M. C., & Balfe, N. (2016). Total Safety Management: Principles,
processes and methods. Safety Science, 1, 1–5.
[43] Gerard I. J., Zwetsloot, M., Hale, H., & Zwanikken, S. (2011). Regulatory risk control
through mandatory occupational safety and health (OSH) certification and testing regimes
(CTRs). Safety Science, 49, 995–1006.
[44] Lenhardt, U., & Beck, D. (2016). Prevalence and quality of workplace risk assessments –
Findings from a representative company survey in Germany. Safety Science, 48–56, 86.
[45] Kouabenan, D.R., Ngueutsa, R., & Mbaye, S. (2015). Safety climate, perceived risk, and
involvement in safety management. Safety Science, 77, 72–79.
[46] ILO Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems.
[47] DNV (2011). Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) technique.
[48] Marine Accident Risk Calculation System (MARCS) (2000).
[49] Risk-Based Decision-Making (RBDM) Guidelines U.S. Coast Guard (USCG 2001).
[50] Mullai, A. (2006). Risk Management System – Risk Assessment Frameworks and
Techniques. DaGoB publication.
[51] Khodabocus B. F., & K.C. Constant, K.C. (2010). Implementing OHSAS 18001:2007: - A
Case Study of Hazard Analysis from the Printing Industry. International Journal of
Engineering Research in Africa, 1, 17-27.
[52] Zhang, J., Teixeira, A.P., Soares, C. G., Yan, X. and Liu, K. (2016). Maritime
transportation risk assessment of Tianjin port with Bayesian belief networks, Risk
Analysis, 1-10.

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJMET 836 [email protected]

 Review on Risk, Risk Assessment Techniques, Guidelines and Framework in Port Safety

[53] Preben, H. L., & Kringen, J. (2015). Risk governance of hazardous industrial ports and
areas: a case study of industrial areas and harbors in Norway, Journal of Risk Research,
18:7, 931-946.
[54] Eleftheria, E., Apostolos, P., & Markos, V. (2016). Statistical analysis of ship accidents
and review of safety level. Safety Science, 85, 282–292.
[55] Le Duy, T. D., Vasseur, D., & Serdet, E. (2016). Probabilistic Safety Assessment of twin-
unit nuclear sites: Methodological elements. Reliability Engineering and System Safety,
145, 250–261.
[56] Knudsen, O. F., & Hassler, B. (2011). IMO legislation and its implementation: Accident
risk, vessel deficiencies and national administrative practices. Marine Policy, 35, 201-207.
[57] Montewka, A., Ehlers, S., Goerlandt, F., Hinz, H., Tabri, K., and Kujala, P. (2014). A
framework for risk assessment for maritime transportation systems - A case study for open
sea collisions involving RoPax vessels. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 124,
142-157.
[58] Antão, P., Calderón, M., Puig, M., Michail, A., Wooldridge, C. Darbraf, R. M (2016).
Identification of Occupational Health, Safety, Security (OHSS) and Environmental
Performance Indicators in port areas. Safety Science, 85, 266-275.
[59] USA, the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC), March 2000. Revised 2009.
[60] New Zealand Code 2016. New Zealand Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code (the Code).
[61] Australia Code 2016. Port Marine Safety Management Guidelines for Australian Ports
(the Guidelines). Available from Australia Port Authority.
[62] UK Code, 2011. Port Marine Safety Code (the Code) UK. Available from UK.
[63] Zaman, M.B., Santoso, A., Kobayashi, E., Wakabayashi, N. and Maimun, A. (2015).
Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) for Analysis of Ship Collision Using AIS Data.
International Journal of Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transport, 9, 67-72.
[64] Vidmar, P., & Perkovic, M. (2015). Methodological approach for safety assessment of
cruise ship in port. Safety Science, 80, 189–200.
[65] Wang, J. and Foinikis, P. (2010). Formal safety assessment of containership. Science
Direct, 143‐157.
[66] Haapasaari, P., Helle, I., Lehikoinen, A., Lappalainen, J., & Kuikka, S. (2015). A
proactive approach for maritime safety policy making for the Gulf of Finland: Seeking
best practices. Marine Policy, 60, 107–118.
[67] Dong, Y., & Frangopol, D. M. (2015). Probabilistic ship collision risk and sustainability
assessment considering risk attitudes. Structural Safety, 53 (2015) 75–84.
[68] Mabrouki, Charif & Bentaleb, Fatimazahra & Mousrij, Ahmed. 2014. A decision support
methodology for risk management within a port terminal. Safety Science, 63. 124–132.
[69] Kumar, P., Gupta, S., Agarwal., M., & Singh, U. (2016) Categorization and
standardization of accidental risk-criticality levels of human error to develop risk and
safety management policy. Safety Science, 85, 88–98.
[70] Jusoh, Z., Shattar, N.A., Majid, M. A. B., & Adenana, N. D. (2016). Determination of
hazard in captive hotel laundry using semi quantitative risk assessment matrix. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222, 915-922.
[71] Akyuz, E. (2016). A marine accident analysing model to evaluate potential operational
causes in cargo ships. Safety Science, 92, 17-25.
[72] Mokhtari, K., Ren, J., Roberts, C., & Wang, J. (2012). Decision support framework for
risk management on sea ports and terminals using fuzzy set theory and evidential
reasoning approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 5087–5103.
[73] Goerlandt, F., & Reniers, G. (2016). On the assessment of uncertainty in risk diagrams.
Safety Science, 84, 67–77.

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJMET 837 [email protected]

Zuritah A. Kadir, Roslina Mohammad, Norazli Othman, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan and Astuty
Amrin

[74] Wijeratne, W. M. P. U., Perera, B. A. K.S. and De Silva, L. (2014). Identification and
assessment risks in maintenance operations. Built Environment Project and Asset
Management, 4, 384-405.
[75] Wang, R., Zheng, W., Liang, Ci., & Tang, T. (2016). An integrated hazard identification
method based on the hierarchical Colored Petri Net. Safety Science, 88, 166–179.
[76] Wen-Kai & Hsu, K. (2012). Ports’ service attributes for ship navigation safety. Safety
Science, 50, 244–252.
[77] Lei, D., Chang-shi, X., Yuan-qiao, W. and Le, W. (2015). Safe speed of ships passing
access channel of port. International Conference on Transportation Information and
Safety, Wuhan, 623-627.
[78] Castaldo, F., Palmieri, F. A. N. and Regazzoni, C. S. (2016). Bayesian analysis of
behaviors and interactions for situation awareness in transportation systems. IEEE
Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 17(2), 313-322.
[79] Perkovic, M., Gucma, L., Przywarty, M., Gucma, M., Petelin, S., & Vidmar, P. Marko, P.
(2012). Nautical risk assessment for LNG operations at the port of Koper. Journal of
Mechanical Engineering, 58, 10, 607-613.
[80] Yang, Y.L., Ding, J. F., Chiu, C.C., Shyu, W.H., Tseng, W. J. and Chou, M.T. (2014).
Core risk factors influencing safe handling operations for container terminals at
Kaohsiung port. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal
of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 230 (2), 444 – 453.
[81] Abderrahmane Bouda Nour El Islam, Bachari Lylia & Bahmed Ryad Boubenia (2016).
Design of a risk assessment methodology for the introduction of invasive species from
ship ballast waters: the case of Arzew port. Management of Environmental Quality: An
International Journal, 27, 1-5.
[82] Emecen Kara, E.G. (2016). Risk Assessment in the Istanbul Strait Using Black Sea MOU
Port State Control Inspections. Sustainability, 8(4), 390.
[83] Mou, M.M., Tak, C.V.F. and Ligteringen, H. (2010). Study on collision avoidance in busy
waterways by using AIS data. Ocean Engineering, 37, 483-490.
[84] Shitel Thekdi, & Terje Aven (2016). An enhanced data-analytic framework for integrating
risk management and performance management. Reliability Engineering and System
Safety, 156, 277–287.
[85] Schmidt, M. S. (2016). Making sense of risk tolerance criteria. Journal of Loss Prevention
in the Process Industries, 41, 344-354.
[86] Amir-Heidari, P., Maknoon, R., Taheri, B., & Bazyari, M. (2016). Identification of
strategies to reduce accidents and losses in drilling industry by comprehensive HSE risk
assessment-A case study in Iranian drilling industry, Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries, 44, 405-413.
[87] S. Drissi, S. Benhadou and H. Medromi, An Autonomous Risk Assessment Model for
Cloud Computing Based on Multi-agent System before and after the Cloud Adoption.
International Journal of Computer Engineering & Technology, 8(4), 2017, pp. 19–30.
[88] Dr. Nabaa Shakir Hadi, Potential Health Risk Assessment for Soil and Air Heavy Metal
Contamination in Baghdad City. International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 236–251.
[89] G. Pavan Kumar and SS. Asadi and A.V.S. Prasad, The Effect of Earned Value
Management on Risk Assessment Using Analytical Network Process: A Case Study.
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(6), 2016, pp. 720–731.
[90] Samaraj S. Thiyagarajan, PMP, A Perspective of Risk Assessment for Product
Developments in Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Products, International Journal of
Management (IJM), Volume 5, Issue 7, July (2014), pp. 44-50

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJMET 838 [email protected]