Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-09T07:19:39.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Maritime Risk Perception and Accident Statistics in the Istanbul Straight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 September 2013

Yusuf Volkan Aydogdu
Yusuf Volkan Aydogdu*
Affiliation:
(Department of Maritime Transportation and Management Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey)
*
(E-mail: yvaydogdu@itu.edu.tr)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Istanbul Strait is a challenging waterway for maritime traffic due to its rough topology, moderate to severe environmental conditions, and heavy local traffic. In particular, a total of 232 maritime accidents took place there between 2000 and 2011. In this study, generic fuzzy analytic hierarchy processes were used to assess the risk perception of stakeholders in the Istanbul Strait, including ship captains, maritime pilots and Vessel Traffic Services operators. These risk perceptions were then compared to the statistical maritime accident data, revealing a fundamental discrepancy between the risk perception and statistical data. Specifically, the area of the Straight with the highest number of accidents is perceived as relatively low-risk, whereas areas perceived as high-risk experience a lower number of accidents. Our results have implications for stakeholders as well as government agencies responsible for the safety of the Straight.

Keywords

Risk perceptionIstanbul StraitMaritime accidentFuzzy analytic hierarchy process
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 129 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aguarón, J. and Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2003). The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds. European Journal of Operational Research, 147, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akten, N. (2003). The Strait of Istanbul (Bosphorus): The seaway separating the continents with its dense shipping traffic. Turkish Journal of Marine Science, 9(3), 241–265.Google Scholar
Akten, N. (2004). Analysis of shipping casualties in the Bosporus. The Journal of Navigation, 57, 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aydogdu, Y. V., Yurtoren, C., Kum, S., Park, J. S. and Park, Y. S. (2010). Questionaire Survey on the Risk Perception in the Istanbul Strait. Journal of Navigation and Port Research, 7, 34, 09/2010.Google Scholar
Aydogdu, Y. V., Yurtoren, C., Kum, S., Park, J. S. and Park, Y. S. (2012). A Study on Local Traffic Management to Improve Marine Traffic Safety in the Istanbul Strait. The Journal of Navigation, 65, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birpınar, M. E., Talu, G. F. and Gonencgil, B. (2009). Environmental effects of maritime traffic on the Istanbul Strait. Environmental Monitoring And Assessment, 152, Nos 1–4, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17, 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulut, E., Duru, O. and Aydogdu, Y. V. (2010). Comparative Analysis for the Selection of Hazardous Area in the Strait of Istanbul. The First Global Conference on Innovation in Marine Technology and the Future of Maritime Transportation, Istanbul, Turkiye.Google Scholar
Bulut, E., Duru, O., Keçeci, T. and Yoshida, S. (2012). Use of consistency index, expert prioritization and direct numerical inputs for generic fuzzy-AHP modeling: A process model for shipping asset management. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 1911–1923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95, 649–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, C. H. (1997). Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy AHP based on the grade value of membership function. European Journal of Operational Research, 96(2), 343–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, G. and Williams, C. (1985). A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29, 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dağdeviren, M. and Yüksel, İ. (2008). Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for behavior-based safety management. Information Sciences, 178, 1717–1733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M. T. and Han, S. (2007). Using fuzzy risk assessment to rate cost overrun risk in international construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), 494–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duru, O., Bulut, E. and Yoshida, S. (2012). Regime switching fuzzy AHP model for choice-varying priorities problem and expert consistency prioritization: A cubic fuzzy-priority matrix design. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 4954–4964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ece, J.N. (2006). The accident Analysis of the Istanbul Strait from the Points of Safe Navigation and Environment and Evaluation of Innocent Passage. Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Science and Technology, Gazi University, 2006.Google Scholar
Forman, E. and Peniwati, K. (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 108, 165–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumus, A. T. (2009). Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 4067–4074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayakawa, H., Fischbeck, P. S. and Fischhoff, B. (2000). Traffic accident statistics and risk perceptions in Japan and the United States. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32(6), 827–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Maritime Organization (1994). MSC 63/23: Maritime Traffic Regulations for the Turkish Straits Region.Google Scholar
International Maritime Organization (2010). Web Site – Conventions – COLREG http://www.imo.org/about/conventions/listofconventions/pages/colreg.aspx, information regarding COLREG 10 (accessed 19 May 2012).Google Scholar
Kaufmann, A. and Gupta, M. M. (1991). Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic. Theory and Applications. Nueva York, EUA: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Kum, S., Fuchi, M. and Furusho, M. (2006). Analysing of Maritime Accidents by Approaching Method for Minimizing Human Error. Proceedings of IAMU AGA-7, “Globalization and MET”, Part 2, 392–409.Google Scholar
Kum, S. (2008). Mental Workload of Vessel Traffic Services Operator. Ph.D. Thesis, Kobe University, Graduate school of Science and Technology, Maritime Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Lund, I. O. and Rundmo, T. (2009). Cross-cultural comparisons of traffic safety, risk perception, attitudes and behaviour. Safety Science, 47(4), 547–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikhailov, L. (2003). Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgements. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 134, 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieto-Morote, A. and Ruz-Vila, F. (2011). A fuzzy approach to construction project risk assessment. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 220–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Or, I. and Kahraman, I. (2002). A Simulation Study of the Accident Risk in the Istanbul Channel. International Journal of Emergency Management, 1(2), 110–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozbas, B., Or, I., Uluscu, O. S. and Altiok, T. (2009). Simulation-Based Risk Analysis of Maritime Transit Traffic in the Strait of Istanbul. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 3, 295–300.Google Scholar
Ozgecan, S., Uluscu, I., Ozbas, B., Altıok, T. and Or, I. (2009). “Risk Analysis of the Vessel Traffic in the Strait of Istanbul”, Journal of Risk Analysis, 29, No. 10.Google Scholar
Powell, C. (2007). The perception of risk and risk taking behavior: Implications for incident prevention strategies. Wilderness & Environmental Medicine, 18(1), 10–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramanathan, R. and Ganesh, L. S. (1994). Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightages. European Journal of Operational Research, 79, 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process: RWS Publications.Google Scholar
Sarioz, K. and Narli, E. (2003). Assessment of manoevring performance of large tankers in restricted waterways: a real-time simulation approach. Ocean Engineering, 30(12), 1535–1551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Laarhoven, P. J. M. and Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11, 199–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X., Chan, H. K., Yee, R. W. and Diaz-Rainey, I. (2012). A two-stage fuzzy-AHP model for risk assessment of implementing green initiatives in the fashion supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(2), 595–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yurtoren, C. (2004). Study on Maritime Traffic Management in the Istanbul Strait, PhD Thesis, Kobe University, Maritime & Transportation System Science.Google Scholar
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar