Limanlar ve suyolları emniyet değerlendirmesi (LVSED) yöntemini kullanarak İstanbul Boğazı risk değerlendirmesi

Öz

Limanlar ve suyolları emniyet değerlendirmesi (LVSED), risk analizinin ve yönetiminin eş zamanlı olarak yapıldığı AHP tabanlı kapsamlı ve karmaşık bir Delfi yöntemdir. Öncelikle denizcilik alanı için geliştirilen LVSED’in, diğer alanlardaki risk analizi uygulamalarına da genişletilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmanın ilk amacı, LVSED sürecini tanıtmak ve metodolojisini akademik yazına kazandırmaktır. Bu çalışmada LVSED’in önemi gösterilmiş ve ileride geliştirilmesi için inovatif öneriler verilmiştir. İkinci olarak seyir risklerini elde etmek ve alınan tedbirlerin verimliliğini ölçmek için PAWSA metodu İstanbul Boğazı’na uygulanmıştır. Seyir durumları, gemi kondisyonları, trafik yoğunluğu ve suyolu karakteristiği risklerini analiz etmektedir. Son olarak, deniz kazalarını minimize etmek ve yeni karşı önlemler ortaya koyarak seyir emniyetini artırmak amaçlanmaktadır. İstanbul Boğazı, dünyada seyri en zorlarından biri ve dünyanın en dar kanalıdır. Stratejik ve coğrafik lokasyonundan dolayı İstanbul Boğazı yoğun bir trafiğe sahiptir. Yıllık istatistiklere göre, trafik yoğunluğu Süveyş Kanalı’ndan iki kat, Panama Kanalı’ndan üç kat daha fazladır. Yoğun yerel trafiğin yanında, Boğaz toplam tonajı 600 milyon olan yaklaşık olarak 50.000 uluslararası gemi tarafından kullanılmaktadır. Istanbul’da 15 milyon insan yaşamakta ve hergün 300.000 kişi İstanbul Boğazını kullanarak Asya’dan Avrupa’ya seyehat etmektedir. Dolayısıyla İstanbul Boğazı deniz taşımacılığı için güvenelir bir metot ile kapsamlı bir risk analizinin yapılması gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Risk analizi,İstanbul boğazı,Risk yönetimi,Delfi yöntemi,LVSED

Risk assessment of the Istanbul Strait by using Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA) method

Abstract

Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA) is a comprehensive and sophisticated AHP-based Delphi method in which risk analysis and risk management are handled simultaneously. PAWSA has primarily developed for maritime domain, and there is a need to extend such risk analyses to the other fields. First aim of this study is to introduce PAWSA process and to add its methodology to existing academic literature. Significance of PAWSA is exhibited and innovative suggestions for further developments are given in this study. Secondly, PAWSA method is employed for Istanbul Strait to obtain the levels of navigational risks and to measure effectiveness of counter actions. It analyses risks of navigation situations, the conditions of vessels, traffic intensity and waterway characteristics. Ultimately, it is aimed to minimize the marine incidents and increase navigational safety by introducing new counter actions. The Istanbul Strait is one of the most difficult-to-navigate and the narrowest international waterway in the world. The Istanbul Strait has a dense traffic because of its geographical and strategic location. According to annual statistics, traffic density is two times more than the Suez Canal and three times more than the Panama Canal. Besides the heavy local traffic, the Strait is used by approximately 50.000 international vessels with a total gross tonnage of 600 million. 15 million people live in Istanbul and 300.000 people are transported daily from Asia to Europe using Istanbul Strait. A comprehensive risk analysis by a convenient method for the Istanbul Strait is therefore required for safe maritime transportation.

Keywords

• Risk analysis,Istanbul strait,Risk management,Delphi method,PAWSA

Kaynakça

1. International Maritime Organization. Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation, NAV 52/17/2, 2006.
2. Harrald JR, Mazzuchi TA, Spahn J, Van Dorp R, Merrick J, Shrestha S, Grabowski M. “Using system simulation to model the impact of human error in a maritime system”. Safety Science, 30(1), 235-247, 1998.
3. Merrick JR, van Dorp JR, Harrald J, Mazzuchi T, Spahn JE, Grabowski M. “A systems approach to managing oil transportation risk in Prince William Sound”. Systems Engineering, 3(3), 128-142, 2000.
4. Merrick JR, Van Dorp JR, Mazzuchi T, Harrald JR, Spahn JE, Grabowski M. “The Prince William sound risk assessment”. Interfaces, 32(6), 25-40, 2002.
5. Merrick JR, Harrald JR. “Making decisions about safety in US ports and waterways”. Interfaces, 37(3), 240-252, 2007.
6. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. United States Coast Guard. “Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment”. http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=pawsaMain (27.07.2017).
7. Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York; USA, McGraw-Hill, 1980.
8. Jiang F, Zhang H, Guo W. “Navigation environment safety research on channel expansion project using PAWSA”. 1st International Conference on Transportation Information and Safety (ICTIS), Wuhan, China, June 30- July2 2011.

9. Tetreault B, Pierre K. “Stakeholder-Driven Risk Management: The Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment: A Risk-Based Decision Making Tool for Waterways Management. Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council, 64(1), Arlington, VA, Spring 2007.
10. Aven T, Zio E. “Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management”. Risk Analysis, 34(7), 1164-1172, 2014.
11. Uzun G, Dağdeviren M, Kabak M. ”Determining the Distribution of Coast Guard Vessels”. Interfaces, 46(4), 297-314, 2016.
12. Levin JL, Gilmore K, Carruth A, Wickman A, Shepherd S, Gallardo G, Nonnenmann M. “Helping gulf shrimpers adopt safety measures: importance of partnerships and research to practice”. Journal of agromedicine, 17(1), 15-21, 2012.
13. North RC. “Marine transportation system task force presentation: implementation of risk assessment”. In Transportation Research Board Conference Proceedings, No. 22, San Francisco, CA, 9-12 July 2000.
14. Markmann C, Darkow IL, Gracht H. “A delphi-based risk analysis-Identifying and assessing future challenges for supply chain security in a multi-stakeholder environment”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(9), 1815-1833, 2013.
15. Hsueh SL. “Assessing the effectiveness of community-promoted environmental protection policy by using a Delphi-fuzzy method: A case study on solar power and plain afforestation in Taiwan”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 49, 1286-1295, 2015.
16. Herrmann A. “The quantitative estimation of IT-related risk probabilities”. Risk Analysis, 33(8), 1510-1531, 2013.
17. Hoelzer K, Oliver HF, Kohl LR, Hollingsworth J, Wells MT, Wiedmann M. “Structured expert elicitation about listeria monocytogenes cross-contamination in the environment of retail deli operations in the united states”. Risk Analysis, 32(7), 1539-6924, 2012.
18. Elmer F, Seifert I, Kreibich H, Thieken AH. “A delphi method expert survey to derive standards for flood damage data collection”. Risk Analysis, 30(1), 107-124, 2010.
19. Issa UH, Farag MA, Abdelhafez LM, Ahmed SA. “A risk allocation model for construction projects in Yemen”. Civil and Environmental Research, 7(3), 78-89, 2015.
20. Omran A, Khorish M, Saleh M. “structural analysis with knowledge-based MICMAC approach”. International Journal of Computer Applications, 86(5), 39-43, 2014.
21. Omran A. “Ontology based RT-Delphi with explanation capabilities”. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 5(3), 803-806, 2014.
22. Clemen RT, Winkler RL. “Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis”. Risk Analysis, 19(2), 187-203, 1999.
23. Kececi T, Arslan O. “SHARE technique: a novel approach to root cause analysis of ship accidents”. Safety Science, 96(2017), 1-21, 2017.
24. Sariöz K, Kükner A, Narli E. “A real-time ship manoeuvring simulation study for the Strait of Istanbul (Bosporus)”. Journal of Navigation, 52(03), 394-410, 1999.
25. Otay NE, Özkan S. “Stochastic prediction of maritime accidents in the strait of Istanbul”. 3rd International conference on oil spills in the Mediterranean and Black Sea Regions, Istanbul, Turkey, October 31-November 3, 2003.
26. Kılıç İ. Bulanık-Analitik Hiyerarşi Sürecini Kullanarak Istanbul Boğazi’nda Deniz Kazalari Risk Analizi. MSc Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2015.
27. Aydoğdu YV. İstanbul Boğazı Yoğun Trafik Bölgesinde Risk Analizi. PhD Dissertation, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2015.
28. Yurtoren C, Aydogdu V. “Risk analysis of congested areas of Istanbul strait via ship handling simulator”, Proceedings of Mathematics and Computers in Science and Engineering, Prague, Czech Republic, 23-25 March 2009.
29. Köse E, Başar E, Demirci E, Güneroǧlu A, Erkebay Ş. “Simulation of marine traffic in Istanbul Strait.” Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory,11(7), 597-608, 2003.
30. Ulusçu ÖS, Özbaş B, Altıok T, Or İ. “Risk analysis of the vessel traffic in the strait of Istanbul”. Risk Analysis, 29(10), 1454-1472, 2009.
31. Ozbas B. “Safety risk analysis of maritime transportation: review of the literature”. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2326, 32-38, 2013.
32. Akten N. “Analysis of shipping casualties in the Bosphorus”. Journal of Navigation, 57(03), 345-356, 2004.
33. Or I, Kahraman I. “A simulation study of the accident risk in the Istanbul Channel”. International Journal of Emergency Management, 1(2), 110-124, 2002.
34. Özbaş B, Or İ, Altıok T. “Comprehensive scenario analysis for mitigation of risks of the maritime traffic in the Strait of Istanbul”. Journal of Risk Research, 16(5), 541-561, 2013.
35. Aydoğdu, YV. “A comparison of maritime risk perception and accident statistics in the Istanbul Straight”. The Journal of Navigation, 67(1), 129-144, 2014.