Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-10T06:36:32.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Probabilistic Analysis of the Impact of Vessel Speed Restrictions on Navigational Safety: Accounting for the Right Whale Rule

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2017

Matteo Convertino  and
L. James Valverde Jr.
Matteo Convertino*
Affiliation:
(HumNat Lab, Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota Twin-Cities, MN) (Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota Twin-Cities, MN) (Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Program, University of Minnesota Twin-Cities)
L. James Valverde Jr.
Affiliation:
(US Department of Energy, Headquarters, Washington, DC)
*
(E-mail: matteoc@umn.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Right Whale Sighting Advisory System (RWSAS) is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries program designed to reduce collisions between vessels and critically endangered North Atlantic right whales. The vessel speed restriction that is part of the RWSAS presents navigation stakeholders with numerous challenges, owing to concerns about increased risks of ship grounding and collisions within ports. In this paper, we present a multi-methodology framework for assessing the impact of the vessel speed restriction on navigational safety. Empirically, we base our discussion in a first-order analysis of ship grounding risk for the Charleston Entrance Channel. Our analysis proceeds in three parts. We begin by using fault and event tree analyses to assess a relevant set of grounding-related event progression and failure probabilities. The influence of alternative vessel speed restrictions on ship grounding risk are then explored via a Bayesian network model that utilises the previously specified fault and event tree models for its partial specification and enumeration. Our analysis suggests that the speed restriction can, under certain reasonable assumptions, be seen to adversely impact the risk of ship grounding accidents in the Charleston Entrance Channel. We conclude with a summary of our findings and recommendations for future research.

Keywords

WhalesSpeed RestrictionOperations ResearchModellingRisk Management
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 65 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2017 

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

Amrozowicz, M., Brown, A. and M, Golay. (1997). A Probabilistic Analysis of Tanker Groundings. In 7th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
Antao, P. and Soares, C. (2006). Fault-tree models of accident scenarios of RoPax vessels. International Journal of Automation and Computing, 2, 107–116.Google Scholar
Bobbio, A., Portinale, L., Minichino, M. and Ciancamerla, E. (2001). Improving the analysis of dependable systems by mapping fault trees into Bayesian networks. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 71, 249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charleston Branch Pilots Association. (2014). https://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/ocs/hsrp/archive/2014/sept/WED%20Sept%2017%202014%20PPTs%20HSRP/John%20Cameron%20Pilots%20Assoc%20HSRP%20Charleston%20Sept2014.pdf.Google Scholar
Conn, P.B. and Silber, G.K. (2014). Vessel speed restrictions reduce risk of collision-related mortality for North Atlantic Right Whales. Ecosphere, 43, 1–15.Google Scholar
Dougherty, E.M. and Fragola, J.R. (1988). Human reliability analysis: a systems engineering approach with nuclear power plant applications. Wiley.Google Scholar
Dunne, G. (1972). Collisions and groundings. Journal of Navigation, 25(1), 113–121.Google Scholar
Friis-Hansen, P., Ravn, E. and Engberg, P. (2009). Basic modelling principles for prediction of collision and grounding frequencies. Technical report, Technical University of Denmark.Google Scholar
Gende, S.M., Hendrix, A.N., Harris, K.R., Eichenlaub, B., Nielsen, J. and Pyare., S. (2011). A Bayesian approach for understanding the role of ship speed in whale-ship encounters. Ecology Applications, 21(6), 2232–40.Google Scholar
Gertman, D.I. and Blackman, H.S. (1994). Human Reliability and Safety Analysis Data Handbook. Wiley.Google Scholar
Graziano, A., Teixeira, A.P., and Guedes Soares, C. (2016). Classification of human errors in grounding and collision accidents using the TRACEr taxonomy. Safety Science, 86, 245–257.Google Scholar
Journee, J. and Pinkster, J. (2002). Introduction in ship hydromechanics. Technical Report MT519, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Kose, E., Dincer, A., and Durukanoglu, H. (1998). Risk assessment of fishing vessels. Turkish Journal of Engineering and Environmental Science, 22, 417–428.Google Scholar
Laist, D.W., Knowlton, A.R., and Pendleton, D. (2014). Effectiveness of mandatory vessel speed limits for protecting North Atlantic Right Whales. Endangered Species Research, 23, 133–147.Google Scholar
Leva, M.C., Friis-Hansen, P., Sonne Ravn, E. and Lepsoe, A. (2006). SAFEDOR: a practical approach to model the action of an Officer of the Watch in collision scenarios. Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference, 2795–2804.Google Scholar
Ramos Martins, M. and Coelho Maturana, M. (2010). Human error contribution in collision and grounding of oil tankers. Risk Analysis, 30(4), 674–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramos Martins, M. and Coelho Maturanam, M. (2013). Application of Bayesian belief networks to the human reliability analysis of an oil tanker operation focusing on collision accidents. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 110, 89–109.Google Scholar
Mazaheri, A. (2009). Probabilistic modelling of ship grounding. Technical Report TKK-AM-10, Helsinki Univeristy of Technology, Department of Applied Mechanics.Google Scholar
Mazaheri, A., Montewka, J., and Kujala, P. (2014). Modelling the risk of ship grounding — a literature review from a risk management perspective. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 13(2), 269–297.Google Scholar
Mazaheri, A., Montewka, J., Kotilainen, P., Edvard Sormunen, O-V., and Kujala, P. (2015). Assessing grounding frequency using ship traffic and waterway complexity. Journal of Navigation, 68(1), 89–106.Google Scholar
Mazaheri, A., Montewka, J. and Kujala, P. (2016). Towards an evidence-based probabilistic risk model for ship-grounding accidents. Safety Science, 86, 195–210.Google Scholar
Mellinger, D.K., Nieukirk, S.L., Klinck, K., Klinck, H., Dziak, R.P., Clapham, P.J. and Brandsdottir., B. (2011). Confirmation of right whales near a nineteenth-century whaling ground east of southern Greenland. Biology Letters, 7, 411–413 Google Scholar
Montewka, J., Hinz, T., Kujala, P., and Matusiak, J. (2010). Probability modelling of vessel collisions. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 95(5), 573–589.Google Scholar
Montewka, J., Goerlandt, F., Innes-Jones, G., Owen, D., Hifi, Y. and Puisa, R. (2017). Enhancing human performance in ship operations by modifying global design factors at the design stage. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 159, 283–300.Google Scholar
NOAA (2017). National Data Buoy Station 41004; downloaded from http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_history. php?station=41004.Google Scholar
Pietrzykowski, Z. (2007). Assessment of navigational safety in vessel traffic in an open area. International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 1(11), 85–88.Google Scholar
Pillay, A. and Wang, J. (2003). Technology and Safety of Marine Systems. Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Redfern, J.V., Mckenna, M.F., Moore, T.J., Calambokidis, J., Deangelis, M.L., Becker, E.A., Barlow, J., Forney, K. A., Fiedler, P.C., and Chivers, S.J. (2013). Assessing the risk of ships striking large whales in marine spatial planning. Conservation Biology, 27(2), 292–302.Google Scholar
Silber, G.K., Adams, J.D. and Fonnesbeck, C.J. (2014). Compliance with vessel speed restrictions to protect North Atlantic Right Whales. PeerJ 2:e399 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.399.Google Scholar
Soares, C. and Teixeira, A. (2001). Risk assessment in maritime transportation. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 74, 299–309.Google Scholar
Van der Hoop, J.M., Vanderlaan, A.S.M., Cole, T.V.N., Henry, A.G., Hall, L., Mase-Guthrie, B., Wimmer, T., and Moore, M.J. (2014). Vessel strikes to large whales before and after the 2008 ship strike rule. Conservation Letters, 8, 24–32.Google Scholar
Vanderlaan, A., and Taggart, C.T. (2007). Vessel collisions with whales: the probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Marine Mammal Science, 23(1), 144–156.Google Scholar
Vanderlaan, A., Corbett, J.J., Green, S.L., Callahan, J.A., Wang, C., Kenney, R.D., Taggart, C.T., and Firestone, J. (2009). Probability and mitigation of vessel encounters with North Atlantic Right Whales. Endangered Species Research, 6, 273–285.Google Scholar
Wennink, C.J. (1992). Collision and grounding risk analysis for ships navigating in confined waters. Journal of Navigation, 45(1), 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, D.N., Thompson, M., Pace, R.M. III, and Levenson, J. (2011). Modeling speed restrictions to mitigate lethal collisions between ships and whales in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, USA. Biological Conservation, 144(9), 2377–2381.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Convertino and Valverde supplementary material

Convertino and Valverde supplementary material 1

Download Convertino and Valverde supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 292.8 KB