Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The acceptability of maritime security risk

  • Published:
Journal of Transportation Security Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The cost-effectiveness of security measures is of paramount importance to how society’s resources are spent to protect against a range of possible future threats. Resources are limited and the challenge arises when deciding where to invest scarce resources in order to maximise benefits. In this respect, a criterion of averting a fatality is proposed for evaluating the effectiveness of maritime regulations concerning security issues. This criterion is derived in the same context as the one used when adopting safety regulations for the maritime industry. It is demonstrated that such kind of a decision criterion can be proposed with a value of $6 million.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bakir NO (2007) A brief analysis of threats and vulnerabilities in the maritime domain. In: Linkov I et al (eds) Managing critical infrastructure risks. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 17–49

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bichou K (2008) Security and risk-based models in shipping and ports: review and critical analysis. OECD International Transport Forum; Discussion Paper No. 2008-20. Available via (Accessed 20 May 2009). http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP200820.pdf

  • Bichou K, Evans A (2007) Maritime security and regulatory risk-based models: review and critical analysis. In: Bichou K et al (eds) Risk management in port operations, logistics and supply-chain security. Informa, London, pp 265–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks MK, Pelot R (2008) Port security: a risk based perspective. In: Talley WK (ed) Maritime safety, security and piracy. Informa, London, pp 195–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalk P (2008) International security: terrorism, piracy, and challenges for the United States. RAND Center for Terrorism Risk Management Policy, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  • CIA (2009) The world fact book. Available via (Accessed 23 March 2009). https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

  • Crist P (2003) Security in maritime transport: risk factors and economic impact. OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry–Maritime Transport Committee, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg MD, Chalk P, Willis HH, Khilko I, Ortiz DS (2006) Maritime terrorism: risk and liability. RAND Center for Terrorism Risk Management Policy, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  • IMO (2003) International ship and port facility security (ISPS) code and SOLAS amendments adopted on 12 December 2002. Electronic edition, Sales number: E116E, London

  • IMO (2004) Consolidated text of the international convention for the safety of life at sea 1974 and its protocol of 1988: articles, annexes and certificates. 4th Edition, Sales number: ID110E, ISBN 92-801-4183-X, London

  • IMO (2007) Formal safety assessment: consolidated text of the guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process (MSC/Circ.1023–MEPC/Circ.392. London: MSC 83/INF.2

  • IMO (2009a) Reports on acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships—annual report 2008. London: MSC.4/Circ.133

  • IMO (2009b) Maritime security. Available via (Accessed 3 August 2009) http://www.imo.org/Safety/mainframe.asp?topic_id=551

  • King J (2005) The security of merchant shipping. Mar Policy 29:235–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert JH (2007) Risk-cost-benefit analysis for port environmental security investments. In: Linkov I et al (eds) Managing critical infrastructure risks. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 299–307

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lind NC, Pandley MD, Nathwani JS (2007) Socially optimized engineered safety: the life quality index. In: Kanda J et al (eds) Applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering—ICASP 10. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 361–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Mærli MB, Barø R, Paaske BJ, Vahr HR, Lia B (2009) Energy supply chain threat assessment and generic security guidance. COUNTERACT Project Deliverable 3 (Restricted access)

  • Munich Reinsurance Company (2003) Schaden Spiegel: Losses and Loss Prevention 46:6–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathwani JS, Narveson J (1995) 3 principles for managing risk in the public interest. Risk Anal 15:615–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathwani JS, Lind NC, Pandey MD (1997) Affordable safety by choice: the life quality method. Institute for Risk Research, University of Waterloo, Waterloo

    Google Scholar 

  • Norway (2000) Formal safety assessment: decision parameters including risk acceptance criteria. London: IMO MSC 72/16

  • Parker P (2009) Paying the pirates. Lloyd’s Ship Econ 31:22–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Parnell GS, Figueira JR, Bennett S, Bobylev N, Del Pup M, Ganoulis J, Haruvy N, Menoni S, Peruzzo F, Salvi O, Sargsyan V, Schlink U, Schnelle D, El Sheltawi S (2007) Decision analysis tools for safety, security, and sustainability of ports and harbors. In: Linkov I et al (eds) Managing critical infrastructure risks. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 245–260

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Poole RW (2008) Toward risk-based aviation security policy. OECD International Transport Forum; Discussion Paper No. 2008-23. Available via (Accessed 20 May 2009). http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP200823.pdf

  • Sandler T, Arce DG, Enders W (2008) Terrorism. Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Challenge Paper. Available via (Accessed 28 April 2009). http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=1152

  • Skjong R (2009) Regulatory framework. In: Papanikolaou A (ed) Risk-based ship design methods, tools and applications. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 97–153

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Skjong R, Ronold KO (2002) So much for safety. Proceedings of the 21st Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference (OMAE), Oslo, Norway, OMAE2002-28451

  • Skjong R, Wentworth BH (2001) Expert judgement and risk perception. In: Langen I et al (eds) Proceedings of the 11th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE). ISOPE, Cupertino, pp 537–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Skjong R, Vanem E, Endresen Ø (2007) Risk evaluation criteria. SAFEDOR-D-4.5.2-2007-10-24-DNV-RiskEvaluationCriteria-rev-3.0. Available via (Accessed 9 March 2009). http://www.safedor.org/resources/SAFEDOR-D-04.05.02-2005-10-21-DNV-RiskEvaluationCriteria-rev-3.pdf

  • Stewart MG, Mueller J (2008) A risk and cost-benefit assessment of United States aviation security measures. J Transp Secur 1:143–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart MG, Mueller J (2009) Cost-benefit assessment of United States homeland security spending. Research Report No. 273.01.2009. Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia

  • Stewart MG, Netherton MD (2007) Security risks and cost-effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies for the protection of buildings against terrorist threats. In: Kanda J et al (eds) Applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering—ICASP 10. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 111–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Talley WK, Rule EM (2008) Piracy in shipping. In: Talley WK (ed) Maritime safety, security and piracy. Informa, London, pp 89–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, Safran DG, Siegel LE, Weinstein MC, Graham JD (1995) Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal 15:369–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urcioli L (2008) Security in physical distribution—causes, mitigation measures and an investment model. Master Thesis, Department of Industrial Management and Logistics. Lund, Sweden: Lund University

  • Viscusi WK (2006) Monetizing the benefits of risk and environmental regulation. Working paper 06–09, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Cambridge, MA

  • Viscusi WK, Aldy JE (2003) The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. J Risk Uncertain 27:5–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zycher B (2003) A preliminary benefit/cost framework for counterterrorism public expenditures. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work reported in this paper has been carried out under the SECTRONIC project, 7th FP, CP-GA No. 218245, with partial funding from the European Commission as well as the DNV R&I strategic research programmes. The authors would like to thank Alexander Flesjø Christiansen and Morten Bremer Mærli (DNV) for their useful comments. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent the views of the SECTRONIC partnership or Det Norske Veritas A/S.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Det Norske Veritas AS, DNV Research & Innovation, Veritasveien 1, NO-1322, Høvik, Norway

    George Psarros, Rolf Skjong & Magnus S. Eide

Authors
  1. George Psarros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rolf Skjong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Magnus S. Eide
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Psarros.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Psarros, G., Skjong, R. & Eide, M.S. The acceptability of maritime security risk. J Transp Secur 2, 149–163 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12198-009-0033-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12198-009-0033-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation