跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(100.28.132.102) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/06/21 21:10
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:丁庭淇
研究生(外文):TING, TING-CHI
論文名稱:海事安全管理關鍵影響因素及政策課題
論文名稱(外文):The Key Influence Factors and Policy Issues of Maritime Safety Management
指導教授:鍾政棋鍾政棋引用關係李選士李選士引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chung, Cheng-ChiLee, Hsuan-Shih
口試委員:林文晟黃昱凱林成蔚鍾政棋
口試委員(外文):Lin, Wen-ChengHuang, Yu-KaiLin, Cheng-WeiChung, Cheng-Chi
口試日期:2023-06-28
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣海洋大學
系所名稱:航運管理學系
學門:運輸服務學門
學類:運輸管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2023
畢業學年度:111
語文別:中文
論文頁數:73
中文關鍵詞:海事調查海事報告海事資料應用海事安全管理政策
外文關鍵詞:Accident InvestigationAccident ReportMarine Data ImplicationMaritime Safety Management and Policy.
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:83
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:21
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
近年全球海事傷亡與事故整體損失顯著下降,國際海事組織(IMO)亦透 過國際公約規範海上交通安全,但各國對公約之執行效果仍嚴重不足,許多 具潛在威脅及危險之船舶持續航行。雖然海上事故的頻率正在減少,但僅一 次性事故即可能對海洋生態系統、環境及當地經濟造成災難性的長期後果。 有鑑於此,海上船舶海事安全管理實為永續且重要之課題,因此本文以 「SAVE 架構」為基礎,提出「海事安全規範辦法(S)、海事案件通報可及(A)、 海事調查專業價值(V)、海事資料智慧應用(E)」四個構面與十六項評估準則, 針對海事安全管理影響因素進行深入探討,並採用分析層級程序法(AHP)探 尋影響海事安全管理關鍵影響因素及其相應政策課題,最後提出具體的研究 結論與改善建議。

基於前述,本文主要的研究發現如下:
1. 在評估構面方面,海事安全管理關鍵影響構面,殊不論係整體評估或分群 評估,皆以「海事安全規範辦法(S)」為首要考量;基此顯示,有必要明確 相關法律規範,以提供海事案件當事人及其他利害關係人,具體解決或阻 止擴大事態之作法。此外,依序是「海事案件通報可及(A)、海事調查專 業價值(V)、海事資料智慧應用(E)」等構面。
2. 就整體評估方面,海事安全管理影響因素中,係以「當局的監管範圍」為 首要的關鍵影響因素;其次,較為重要者依次係「標準的事件定義、經濟 的誘因措施、通報系統有效性、調查人員的訓練」等因素;基於此,實應 加強界定國際公約及各國當局的監管範圍,避免不一致的政策造成海事 安全漏洞,且可多採用激勵政策,促使整體海運產業鏈行為者,針對海事 安全管理投入更多心力與成本,近一步強化整體海事安全管理。

期透過本研究提供國際海事安全政策及後續資料應用之參考,協助交通部、航港局及運輸安全委員會進行相關海事安全政策擬定,以達提升海上交 通安全,促進海洋運輸永續經營。
In recent years, the overall loss of global marine casualties and incidents has decreased significantly. The IMO has made maritime safety regulations through international conventions. However, the implementation of each country is still seriously insufficient, and lots of potentially threatening and dangerous vessels continue to voyage. Although the frequency of marine accidents is falling, but just one incident could be strong enough to cause catastrophic long-termed consequences for marine ecosystems, environment and local economies. As a result, it can be seen that maritime safety management is a sustainable and important issue after all.
Therefore, based on the “SAVE framework,” this paper proposes “Legal Solution, Reported Access, Investigative Value, and Informative Education” four criteria and sixteen factors to conduct detailed discussion and analysis on the factors affecting maritime safety management. Using the AHP method, this research explores key influencing factors and related policies that affect maritime safety management, so as to propose related improvements and suggestions.

The main results of this research are as follows:
1. Among four criteria, both overall and group analysis take the “Legal Solution” as the first consideration, showing that relevant laws and regulations should be clarified, providing parties in the action and other stakeholders with specific solutions or measures to prevent the expansion of the situation. Furthermore, “Reported Access, Investigative Value, and Informative Education” are in sequence.
2. Among sixteen factors, the overall analysis takes “Regulatory Scope, Standard Definition, Incentive Policies, Reporting Effectiveness, and Investigation Training” as the key influencing factors. It’s indicated that the regulatory scope of international conventions and national authorities should be clarified to avoid safety loopholes caused by inconsistent policies. Also, it’s suggested that more incentive policies could be adopted to encourage actors in the entire maritime industry chain to devote themselves to maritime safety management.

Through this research, we’d like to provide references for international maritime safety policies and follow-up data implications to assist the MOTC, MPB, and Institute of Transportation with formulating relevant strategies to improve maritime safety and help forward sustainable ocean shipping management.
誌謝 .......................................................................................................I
摘要 ..................................................................................................... II
Abstract .............................................................................................III
目錄 ....................................................................................................IV
圖目錄 ................................................................................................VI
表目錄 .............................................................................................. VII
第一章 緒論........................................................................................1
1.1 研究背景與動機..................................................................................1
1.2 研究問題與目的..................................................................................3
1.3 研究內容與方法..................................................................................4
1.4 研究架構與流程..................................................................................5
第二章 文獻回顧與評析.................................................................... 9
2.1 海事安全監管相關文獻......................................................................9
2.2 海事安全管理影響因素相關文獻....................................................13
2.3 研究方法相關文獻............................................................................18
2.4 綜合評析............................................................................................19
第三章 分析層級程序法與評估架構..............................................20
3.1 研究方法採用之理由........................................................................20
3.2 海事安全 SAVE 架構及其內涵........................................................20
3.3 評估構面及評估準則說明................................................................22
3.4 分析層級程序法................................................................................26
第四章 海事安全管理實證分析......................................................31
4.1 問卷調查與分析................................................................................31
4.2 整體評估分析....................................................................................32
4.3 分群評估分析....................................................................................33
4.4 綜合討論............................................................................................39
第五章 結論與建議..........................................................................46
5.1 結論....................................................................................................46
5.2 建議....................................................................................................47
5.3 後續研究之建議................................................................................48
參考文獻 ............................................................................................ 50
附件「海事安全管理關鍵影響因素評估」問卷調查.................... 54
1. 李選士、鍾政棋、王榮昌、曾維國、林文晟、葉祖宏、賴靜慧、鄭信鴻、吳熙 仁、黃茂信(2022),「我國海事安全資料蒐集與應用之研究」,臺北市:交通部運 輸研究所。
2. 方信雄(2022),航行避碰與港區操船,臺北市,五南書局。
3. 梁金樹、丁吉峯、王淑滿(2021),數量研究方法-理論與應用,臺北市:詠絮印刷,臺灣。
4. Anderson, P. (2003), “Cracking the Code - The Relevance of the ISM Code and Its Impacts on Shipping Practices,” The Nautical Institute, London.
5. Akyuz,E.andCelikE.(2018),“AQuantitativeRiskAnalysisbyUsingIntervalType- 2 Fuzzy FMEA Approach: The Case of Oil Spill,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 45, No. 8, pp. 979~994.
6. Almklov, P.G. and Lamvik, G.M. (2018), “Taming A Globalized Industry-Forces and Counter Forces Influencing Maritime Safety,” Marine Policy, Vol. 96, pp. 175~183.
7. Baldwin, R.; Cave, M., and Lodge, M. (2012), “Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice,” Oxford University Press, Oxford.
8. Basset, M.A., Mohamed, M., Sangaiah, A.K., and Jain, V. (2018), “An Integrated Neutrosophic AHP and SWOT Method for Strategic Planning Methodology Selection,” Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 2546~2564.
9. Berkowitz, H.; Prideaux, M.; Lelong, S., and Frey, F. (2019), “The Urgency of Sustainable Ocean Studies in Management,” Management, Vol. 22, pp. 297~315.
10.Bhattacharya, S. (2009), “The Impact of the ISM Code on the Management of Occupational Health and Safety in the Maritime Industry,” School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University.
11. Black, J. (2008), “Constructing and Contesting Legitimacy and Accountability in Polycentric Regulatory Regimes,” Regulation and Governance, Vol. 2, pp. 137~164.
12. Bloor, M.; Datta, R.; Gilinskiy, Y., and Horlick-Jones, T. (2006), “Unicorn Among The Cedars: On the Possibility of Effective ''Smart Regulation'' of the Globalized Shipping Industry,” Social and Legal Studies, Vol. 15, Iss. 4, pp. 534~551.
13. Boisson, P. (1994), “Classification Societies and Safety at Sea: Back to Basics to Prepare for the Future,” Marine Policy, Vol. 18, Iss. 5, pp. 363~377.
14. Branch, A.E. (2007), “Elements of Shipping,” 8th Ed, London: Routledge.
15. Bye, R.J. and Almklov, P.G. (2019), “Normalization of Maritime Accident Data Using AIS,” Marine Policy, Vol. 109, 103675.
16. Chiarini, A. (2019), “Choosing Action Plans for Strategic Manufacturing Objectives Using AHP: Analysis of the Path and Pitfalls Encountered - An Exploratory Case Study,” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 30, pp.180~194.
17. DeJoy, D.M. (1994), “Managing Safety in the Workplace: An Attribution Theory Analysis and Model,” Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 25, pp. 3~17.
18. Dominguez-Péry, C.; Vuddaraju, L.N.R.; Corbett-Etchevers, I., and Tassabehji, R. (2021), “Reducing Maritime Accidents in Ships by Tackling Human Error: A Bibliometric Review and Research Agenda,” Journal of Shipping and Trade, Vol. 6, No. 20.
19. Durāo, L.F.C.S., Carvalho, M.M., and Takey. S. (2018), “Internet of Things Process Selection: AHP Selection Method,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 99, pp.2623~2634.
20. Eide, M. S.; Endresen, Ø.; Breivik, Ø.; Brude, O. W.; Elligsen, I. H.; Røang, K.; Hauge, J., and Brett, P. O. (2007), “Prevention of Oil Spill from Shipping by Modeling of Dynamic Risk,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 54, pp. 1619~1633.
21. Ek, Å. and Akselsson, R. (2005), “Safety Culture on Board Six Swedish Passenger Ships,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 32, Iss. 2, pp. 159~176.
22. Ettenson, R., Conrado, E., and Knowles, J. (2013), “Rethinking the 4 P’s,” Harvard Business Review, Jan.-Feb., pp. 1~2.
23. European Maritime Safety Agency (2022), “Annual Overview of Marine Casualties and Incidents.”
24. Haapasaari, P.; Helle, I.; Lehikoinen, A.; Lappalainen, J., and Kuikka, S. (2015), “A Proactive Approach for Maritime Safety Policy Making for the Gulf of Finland: Seeking Best Practices,” Marine Policy, Vol. 60, pp. 107~118.
25. Havold, J.I. (2000), “Culture in Maritime Safety,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 27, Iss. 1, pp. 79~88.
26. Hill, S.G.; Byers, J.C.; Rothblum, A.M., and Booth, R.L. (1994), “Gathering and Recording Human-Related Causal Data in Marine and Other Accident Investigations,” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting, Vol. 38, Iss. 14, pp. 863~867.
27. Hood, C.; James, O.; Scott, C.; Jones, G.W., and Travers, T. (1999), “Regulation Inside Government: Waste Watchers, Quality Police, and Sleaze-Busters,” Oxford University Press, Oxford.
28.IMO (2005), “Role of the Human Element - Assessment of the Impact and Effectiveness of Implementation of the ISM Code,” International Maritime Organization, MSC 81/17.
29.Jeevan, J.; Ramamoorthy, K.; Salleh, N.H.M.; Hu Y., and Park, G.K (2020), “Implication of E-Navigation on Maritime Transportation Efficiency,” World Maritime University Journal of Maritime Affairs, Vol. 19, pp. 73~94.
30. Johnson, C. (2002), “Software Tools to Support Incident Reporting in Safety-Critical Systems,” Safety Science, Vol. 40, pp. 765~780.
31.Knapp, S. (2007), “The Econometrics of Maritime Safety - Recommendations to Enhance Safety at Sea,” PhD Thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
32. Knapp, S. and Franses, P.H. (2008), “Econometric Analysis to Differentiate Effects of Various Ship Safety Inspections,” Marine Policy, Vol. 32, Iss. 4, pp. 653~662.
33.Knudsen, O.F. and Hassler, B. (2011), “IMO Legislation and Its Implementation: Accident Risk, Vessel Deficiencies and National Administrative Practices,” Marine Policy, Vol. 35, Iss. 2, pp. 201~207.
34. Kotler, P. and Keller, K. L. (2016), “Marketing Management (14th edition),” Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House.
35.Kuronen, J. and Tapaninen, U. (2009), “Maritime Safety in the Gulf of Finland- Review on Policy Instruments,” Publications from the Centre for Maritime Studies University of Turku, A49.
36. Kuronen, J. and Tapaninen, U. (2010), “Views of Finnish Maritime Experts on the Effectiveness of Maritime Safety Policy Instruments,” Publications from the Centre for Maritime Studies University of Turku, A54.
37.Kuronen, J. and Tapaninen, U. (2010), “Evaluation of Maritime Safety Policy Instruments,” World Maritime University Journal of Maritime Affairs, Vol. 9, No.1, pp. 45~61.
38. Kwak, S.Y. and Kim, M.J. (2018), “A Study on the Selection Criteria of Delivery Method for Korean Cross-Border E-Commerce Companies Using AHP,” Journal of International Trade and Commerce, Vol. 14, pp.127~142.
39. Lappalainen, J., Vepsäläinen, A., Salmi, K., and Tapaninen, U. (2011), “Incident Reporting in Finnish Shipping Companies,” World Maritime University Journal of Maritime Affairs, pp. 167~181.
40.Lappalainen, J., StorgÁrd, J., and Tapaninen, U. (2013), “The Effectiveness of Maritime Safety Policy Instruments from the Finnish Maritime Experts’ Point of View-Case Gulf of Finland and Prevention of an Oil Accident,” Trans Nav; International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, Vol. 7, Iss. 3, pp. 353~362.
41.Mallam, S.C., Wahl, A.M., and Aas, J. (2022), “Reintroducing the Sharp-End Operator to Organizational Learning: How Accident Reports Are Used by Maritime Officers,” Safety Science, Vol. 147, 105632.
42.Nagy, L., Ruppert, T., and Abonyi, J. (2020), “Analytic Hierarchy Process and Multilayer Network-Based Method for Assembly Line Balancing,” Applied Sciences, Vol. 10, pp. 3932.
43. Ostrom, E. (2010), “Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems,” American Economic Review, Vol. 100, No. 3, pp. 641~672.
44. Roberts, C.M.; McClean, C.J.; Veron, J.E.N.; Hawkins, J.P.; Allen, G.R.; Mcallister, D.E.; Mittermeier, C.G.; Schueler, F.W.; Spalding, M.; Wells, F.; Vynne, C., and Werner, T.B. (2002), “Marine Biodiversity Hotspots and Conservation Priorities for Tropical Reefs,” Science, Vol. 295, Iss. 5558, pp. 1280~1284.
45. Roberts, J. (2007), “Marine Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation: The Application and Future Development of the IMO’s Particularly Sensitive Sea Area Concept,” Berlin: Springer.
46. Roe, M.S. (2008), “Safety, Security, the Environment and Shipping: The Problem of Making Effective Policies,” WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, Vol. 7, pp. 263~279.
47. Roe, M. (2009), “Multi-Level and Polycentric Governance: Effective Policymaking for Shipping,” Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 39~56.
48. Roe, M. (2013), “Maritime Governance and Policy-Making,” Springer, 2013th edition, London.
49. Rothblum, A.M. and Chervalhais, A.B. (1996), “Maritime Applications of Human Factors Test and Evaluation.” Handbook of Human Factors Testing and Evaluation,” editors: Charlton, S.G. and O’Brien, T.G., 2nd edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.
50. Saaty, T.L. (1980), “The Analysis Hierarchy Process,” McGraw Hill, New York.
51. Sage, B. (2005), “Identification of ‘High Risk Vessels’ in Coastal Waters,” Marine Policy, Vol. 29, pp. 349~355.
52. Sampson, H. and Bloor, M. (2007), “When Jack Gets Out of the Box: The Problems of Regulating a Global Industry,” Sociology, Vol. 41, Iss. 3, pp. 551~569.
53. Sengar, V.S., Garg, C.P., and Raju, T.B. (2018), “Assessment of Sustainable Initiatives in Indian Ports Using AHP Framework,” International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 16, pp. 110~126.
54. Stopford, M. (2009), “Maritime Economics,” 3rd edition, London: Routledge.
55. Tseng, W.J., Ding J.F., and Chen Y.C. (2018), “Evaluating Key Risk Factors Affecting Cargo Damages on Export Operations for Container Shipping Carriers in Taiwan,” International Journal of Maritime Engineering, Vol. 160, pp. 425~434.
56. Vaidya, S.O. and Kumar, S. (2006), “Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Overview of Applications,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 169, pp. 1~29.
57.Vargas, L.G. (1990), “An Overview of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Applications,”European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 48, pp. 2~8.
58. Weber, J.M and Crew, Jr. R.E. (2000), “Deterrence Theory and Marine Oil Spills: Do Coast Guard Civil Penalties Deter Pollution?” Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 58, Iss. 3, pp. 161~168.
59. Zhang, C. and Chen, M. (2018), “Prioritizing Alternatives for Sustainable End-Of- Life Vehicle Disassembly in China Using AHP Methodology,” Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 30, pp. 556~568.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top