Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
The merchant marine fleet is under inspection by several parties to ensure maritime regulation compliance. International Maritime Organization mainly regulates the industry, and the most effective defender is indeed Port StateControl run by the regional memorandum of understandings.
Objective
This article aims to analyze all detention remarks of Paris Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) from 2013 to 2019 for EU15 countries (except Luxemburg and Austria) to guide marine industry on detainable Port State Control remarks and country risk profile.
Methods
The data of the detained vessels taken from the public website of Paris MOU and each report considered as a professional judgment that causes detention. Analytical Hierarchy Process Approach has been utilized to indicate the ranking of basic maritime regulations from the perspective of the Port State Control, and Geographic Information System (GIS) helps us to demonstrate the regional dispersion amongst EU15.
Results
Through an approach based on Analytical Hierarchy Process and demonstrating the results on GIS has been shown that almost all the country’s top priorities for regulation are Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and Fire Safety Systems (FSS). Moreover, a comparative demonstration of the detention percentage of each regulation to AHP results demonstrates a better understanding of EU15 countries' detention profile.
Conclusion
The results of the study can assist Port State Officers, ship crew, ship owners, and managers in presenting the facts of their inspection and able to improve themselves. The spatial analysis is also expected to guide ship owners and managers to focus their vessel’s deficiencies on preventing sub-standardization. Policymakers also utilize these reports to evaluate their inspection practices.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Mechanical Engineering,Transportation,Automotive Engineering
Reference24 articles.
1. Anon. n.d. “Why does the EU need the European maritime safety agency?” Retrieved May 14, 2019 (http://www.emsa.europa.eu/emsa-homepage/80-about/60-why-does-the-eu-need-the-european-maritime-safety-agency.html).
2. Bhattacharya, S. (2012). The effectiveness of the ISM code: A qualitative enquiry. Marine Policy, 36(2), 528–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.09.004.
3. Bolat, F., & Guler, N. (2015). Hub port potential of Marmara region in Turkey by network-based Modelling. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Transport, 168(2), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.1680/tran.13.00043.
4. Cariou, P., Mejia, M. Q., & Wolff, F.-C. (2008). On the effectiveness of port state control inspections. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 44(3), 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2006.11.005.
5. Cariou, P., Mejia, M. Q., & Wolff, C. F. (2009). Evidence on target factors used for port state control inspections. Marine Policy, 33(5), 847–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.03.004.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献