Marine Policy 127 (2021) 104428

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Scenario planning for an autonomous future: A comparative analysis of

national preparedness of selected countries
Yvette de Klerk a, *, Michael Ekow Manuel a, 1, Momoko Kitada a
a
World Maritime University, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper reports on the outcome of a comparative analysis of national preparedness relating to maritime policy,
Autonomous shipping legislative frameworks, societal readiness and human resource development for autonomous vessel operations in
Maritime policy selected countries. The study used a systematic literature review to generate four possible scenarios from which
Maritime governance
one was selected as the most plausible for interrogating the state of preparedness of the selected countries. A
Scenario planning
PESTELE analysis
mixed methods approach was then used to gain in-depth insights into the legislative, human resource, and
infrastructure aspects of national preparedness. The resulting analysis and findings, informed by a methodo­
logical consideration of various external factors, reveal the unique situation of each of the selected countries
which either impedes or facilitates national preparedness. The existence (or non-existence) of a maritime
transport policy together with its implementation (or non-implementation) of related actions regarding tech­
nological readiness reflect whether the conditions in the scenario will be a threat, challenge or opportunity for
that particular country. Despite this, many countries appear not to have addressed the specific issue of readiness
for an autonomous future in shipping, either because of a lack of awareness or because policy makers are pre-
occupied with what is considered to be more pressing public policy matters. The paper concludes by noting
that scenario planning, stakeholder identification and partnerships, as well as explicit policy development
mechanisms geared towards close(r) collaboration between government, industry and academia as drawn from
triple helix theory are required to successfully respond to the possible extreme disruption of autonomous systems
in a maritime context.

1. Introduction for governance.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution is considered a disruptive paradigm
of innovation, which is impacting many spheres of society and includes
operator-less transport systems, 3-D printing and artificial intelligence.
Autonomous ports are already in operation in, among others, Qingdao
and Shanghai [1], Rotterdam [2] and Singapore [3], and the Interna­
tional Maritime Organization (IMO) is currently conducting a regulatory
scoping exercise in preparation of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships
(MASS) [4]. MASS is considered a disruptive innovation and its intro­
duction will fundamentally change the shipping industry and global
maritime transport system [5]. The IMO scoping exercise seeks to
identify provisions of current instruments and assess whether, and to
what degree it may be applicable and/or preclude MASS operations [4].
The presence of an easily monitored, all-encompassing maritime in­
dustry public policy is not only advantageous [6] but is also a necessity
Good governance is said to be:
… participatory, consensus-oriented, accountable, transparent,
responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and fol­
lows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimised, the
views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the
most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also
responsive to the present and future needs of society [7].
In terms of international operationalisation of autonomous shipping,
the need for good governance processes concerning decision-making
and implementation (or non-implementation) of MASS is important
and should include all stakeholders whether at the national or interna­
tional levels. Collaboration within and the contribution of maritime
clusters in the policy-making process may be instrumental as govern­
ments choose to prepare (or not) for autonomous shipping operations -

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ydk@wmu.se (Y. de Klerk).
1
Present address: World Maritime University, Fiskehamnsgatan 1, Box 500, SE 201 24, Malmo, Sweden.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104428
Received 1 July 2020; Received in revised form 14 January 2021; Accepted 3 February 2021
Available online 12 February 2021
0308-597X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. de Klerk et al.
whether nationally, regionally or internationally. Maritime clusters are
particularly significant as it has been found that wherever the maritime
industry operates, the surrounding region appears to flourish, as a result
of the multiplier effect2 [8].
Regarding skills development and future workforce, it can be argued
that governments need to take critical and targeted action now to avoid/
limit the increasing potential for unemployment and inequality arising
from the disruptive effects of Industry 4.0 [9] and to contain any con­
sequences, were any such unemployment and inequality to happen.
Skills and competencies need to evolve to cope with technological ad­
vancements and increased automation and the professional uncertainty
that may accompany them. Attempts to do so in the international
domain are exemplified by the work of the International Association of
Maritime Universities (IAMU), which together with the Nippon Foun­
dation, has framed a concept for the Global Maritime Professional
(GMP) of the future. This Body of Knowledge considers the technical
competencies, academic and soft skills, and professionalism of the GMP
[10]. At the national level, all such attempts, are best articulated and
addressed within the context of public policy that aligns with the stated
goals of a nation.
This research dealt with emerging and potentially severely disrup­
tive technological innovations in the maritime sphere which are yet to
be regulated in an international context. The study interrogated the
actions of selected countries as regards preparedness for a future of
autonomous ships and thereby created a basis for national conceptual
framing of the discourse in this area and further research on national
preparedness. By using a systematic literature review (SLR), this study
generated autonomous vessel scenarios over the short, medium and long
terms and determined readiness to accept increased automation under
the most plausible of these scenarios in the selected jurisdictions.
The research contributes to knowledge with insights into the state of
different nations in this regard as well as with recommendations in
support of governments’ preparation for autonomous vessel operations
under the most plausible of the determined scenarios.
The article is structured as follows: The next section discusses the
current debate on MASS and its implications, which will be followed by
the theories of change and public policy. After the methodology section,
four scenarios are generated to discuss how selected countries could be
prepared for operationalising autonomous shipping. Finally, the article
presents a preliminary conclusion and suggestions for future study.
2. MASS and public policy
Remotely operated or autonomous vessels are anticipated to be
sailing in certain sea-areas within the next few years. It is predicted that
these vessels may initially be operational on coastal voyages and short
sea routes and undertake international voyages by as early as 2030 [11]
or 2040 [12]. The introduction of these technically advanced vessels
sailing alongside conventional merchant vessels3 poses a multitude of
challenges, relating amongst others to the legal framework and available
resources – especially human resources and infrastructure. Even if fully
autonomous ships will not be fully engaged in global trade, the ships of
the near future will have automation levels well beyond those that exist
2
The multiplier effect is an economic principle that notes that an injection of
spending in a specific economic sector can lead to a proportional amount of
increase (or decrease) in final and overall financial outcomes depending on the
effect of the initial spending on related economic sectors.
3 approaches, concepts or language into a single study” [17] Pragmatism
There are vessels on order today which cannot be described as having high
levels of autonomy. Considering that shipbuilding is highly capital intensive,
and that such ships normally have a lifetime of 25–30 years, it is not realistic to
suppose that highly autonomous ships will replace all traditional ships in the
next three decades. The most logical prediction over these decades will have to
envision a scenario where ships of different autonomous levels (from no auto­
mation to highly automated) operate in international waters together.
2
Marine Policy 127 (2021) 104428
today.
The effect of MASS on the labour market and seafarer employment
has received attention from various entities [12,13] in terms of the
impact on future competencies and training requirements. The lead-time
required for formulating and implementing policies, as well as for
appropriate education and training could result in a situation where the
required resources are not available when they are needed. Maritime
policies cover an extensive spectrum requiring deliberations among
diverse stakeholders which should ultimately and optimally lead to
strategic actions being taken. These can range from military to envi­
ronmental, legal, social, political, commercial actions relating to ports
and harbours, production, energy and science, and education [14].
Maritime policies are also possibly implemented at different levels,
including universities, industries, and governments. Such collaborations
are for instance seen in the ‘triple helix’ model of
university-industry-government relations [15]. The formulation of
maritime public policies is also considered a challenge due to the large
array of topics to be covered. This challenge is further exacerbated when
local, national and/or international domains are not clearly distin­
guished from a legal, political or territorial perspective [14]. How does a
nation prepare for an autonomous future in vessel operations amidst the
many uncertainties that digital disruption brings? To answer this ques­
tion, it is necessary to consider different scenarios that may present
themselves as needful of addressing via maritime legislative and policy
frameworks to ensure national and industry readiness and the devel­
opment of the required human resources in tandem with the values and
goals of a national jurisdiction. Regarding industry readiness to oper­
ationalise autonomous shipping, one needs to consider various external
factors such as those included in the common strategic planning tools
used in business, such as a PESTELE analysis.
The response of countries to drivers for change (whether externally
or internally originated) falls to a large extent in the domain of public
policy. Key and relevant policy theories in this domain relate to how
things get on the agenda of countries (agenda setting), how policies are
formulated, legitimated, implemented and monitored/evaluated, per
the stages in the classic policy cycle [16]. It is within the context of
public policy theory that country responses to significant changes such
as those driven by innovation and technology, can be interrogated. In
some cases, there is an absence of any clear policy on an issue; in others,
policies exist but are either not implemented at all or are implemented in
less-than-optimal ways; in still other cases, policies exist, are clear and
are implemented well. It is therefore important to identify a new
approach to determine readiness to respond to increased automation in
the selected jurisdictions. With this in mind, the research sought to
interrogate likely future scenarios relating to the operationalisation of
autonomous shipping; what initiatives, if any, have been taken by each
of the selected jurisdictions to prepare for autonomous shipping in
respect of the most plausible of these scenarios; and how prepared the
maritime industry and society in general in each jurisdiction are to
operationalise autonomous shipping under the most plausible future
scenario.
The next section discusses the methodological approach and
methods employed to this end.
3. Methodological approach and methods
A multi-step mixed-methods paradigm was deemed appropriate in
determining industry readiness for autonomous vessel operations as it
“combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods,
as a research paradigm embraces plurality of methods [18,19] and thus
allowed the study to integrate both qualitative and quantitative data
collection methods and forms of data analyses [20] to answer the
research questions. To cite Manuel [21], “We neither have to be bound
by Durkheimian positivism nor by Weberian ‘Versterhen’ … Practicality
demands that methods are blended and used to best ends for the
Y. de Klerk et al.
research focus at hand”.
The first method applied was a systematic literature review (SLR)
conducted to generate four autonomous future scenarios. From the
generated scenarios the most plausible scenario was deduced logically
with reference to highest likelihood. Subsequently, a comparative
analysis of four specific national jurisdictions was conducted with spe­
cific reference to this most plausible scenario. The countries were
selected following various qualifying criteria such as degree of
involvement in research development and innovation as well as the
potential impact of autonomous shipping on maritime labour supply and
to afford a degree of global representation.
Following the SLR, the following methods were used to collect data
to inform the comparative analysis: a questionnaire; semi-structured
interviews; standard focus groups as well as a variation of the stan­
dard focus group approach referred to in this work as quasi-focus
groups.
3.1. Systematic literature review (SLR) for scenario-generation
The aim of the SLR was to ascertain, choose and critically appraise
appropriate literature addressing the degree to which technology would
impact the operationalisation of autonomous shipping and thus to
determine different possible scenarios.
a. Planning the review
Full text literature in the English language were sourced from the
online EBSCO Library ‘Discovery Search’ Database4 after careful
consideration of criteria for inclusion (government and industry re­
ports on autonomous shipping/technology) and exclusion (literature
published before 2015 and non-related abstracts) criteria. The limi­
tation to post-2015 literature arose from an examination of internet-
based keyword use5 which showed that the relevant key words only
showed significant use after 2015. SmartText Searching included the
following key words and phrases: Fourth Industrial Revolution;
autonomous; shipping; maritime; automation and jobs; autonomous
ships.
b. Collecting and evaluating sources
A breakdown of the documents obtained, screened and analysed
are presented in Table 1. The work informing the table is based on
the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-
Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram [22].
c. Analysis of SLR data
As indicated in Table 1, the final number of studies included in the
analysis was eighteen (18). These were assessed from a content
perspective for their suitability in meeting the search criteria. The
Table 1
Systematic literature review summary.
Description Number
Total number sourced from academic databases 36
Total number sourced from industry 10
Number of duplicates removed 3 than random selection to generate a sample [29]. There were two sets of
Number of records screened 43
Number of records excluded 10
Number of full texts assessed for eligibility 33
Number excluded after full text review 15
Number of texts included 18
4
Accessible through the host university’s library uses ‘OneSearch’, which
includes multiple databases including Academic Search Complete, ERIC, Li­
brary Discovery Service, ProQuest, Science Direct, SCOPUS, and many
maritime-specific databases.
5 without crew onboard
Google Ngram Viewer was used for this.
3
Marine Policy 127 (2021) 104428
documents were qualitatively coded using the Atlas.ti Qualitative
Data Analysis software programme (version 8.4.4). The next meth­
odological step was to use the Word Cruncher feature of the Atlas.ti
software to highlight the number of specific words relating to time­
frame, technology and area of operation.
3.2. Scenario generation
A scenario is defined as a “coherent, internally consistent and plau­
sible description of a possible future state of the world. It is not a fore­
cast; rather, each scenario is one alternative image of how the future can
unfold” [23]. Scenario generation and planning offer the opportunity to
consider how changing social, technological, economic and political
factors can lead to multiple futures. The validity of the scenarios
generated depend largely on the ability of the generation process to be
(1) exhaustive in the coverage of all relevant areas and (2) the accuracy
of the prediction of how these factors will change and how they influ­
ence each other. The challenge lies very much with the latter and also
the near impossibility of knowing all the new and generative factors and
drivers that do not exist in extant circumstances. Furthermore, scenarios
are significantly influenced by perceived drivers which may be evident
in clear trends, but also in unanticipated triggers, shocks and risks.
Iterative cycles of stakeholder engagement consisting of three steps -
idea generation, idea integration and scenario description, and scenario
evaluation are considered invaluable in designing scenarios which help
generate and communicate various ideas about the future [24]. The
difficulty of scenario planning is also exacerbated by the fact that both
predictable trends and unanticipated shocks (as pertains in the policy
paradigm of “punctuated equilibrium” [see Ref. 25]) may have a tem­
poral scope that is undeterminable [26,27]. The SLR was meant to
reduce these difficulties by examining different research-based litera­
tures so as to address as many issues as was possible within the scope of
this research.
Four scenarios, which were temporally separated according to the
years 2020, 2025, 2035, and 2040, were generated following the SLR.
These are summarised in Table 2.
The systematic review suggested a leaning toward the anticipation of
autonomous shipping being global by 2040. The scope of the research
was limited to Scenario Delta, as this was deemed to be the most plau­
sible scenario to explore countries’ readiness, considering the lead time
to respond in preparation for 2040.
Following the SLR, the other methods in the mixed-methods para­
digm were used to gain answers to the other research questions.
3.3. Country selection
Using purposive non-probability sampling methods, four countries
were selected for the study. In this type of sampling, researchers use
their judgement to select a sample [28]. Although potential sampling
bias exist (as mentioned in the limitations), it is often used in qualitative
research design where researchers rely on theory and practice, rather
qualifying criteria for selection. The first set included active engagement
Table 2
Summary of scenarios.
Scenario Timeframe Description
Yankee 2020 Business as usual; autonomous vessels operating with
crew onboard only in domestic waters
Quebec 2025 Reduced manning on conventional ships, and the first
fully autonomous vessels operating without crew onboard
in domestic waters
Delta 2035 Autonomous vessels operating in domestic waters without
crew onboard
Oscar 2040 Fully autonomous vessels operating internationally
Y. de Klerk et al.
in autonomous shipping through research and development, innovation
and testing; existence of an established/active national maritime cluster
engaged in autonomous shipping activities; active engagement in dis­
cussions relating to maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS) at IMO.
This first set of criteria led to the inclusion of Norway and Singapore.
Indeed, the Norwegian Government actively supports R&D in the field of
autonomous shipping and the first fully-autonomous, electric and
zero-emission ship in the world is about to enter into operation.
Singapore is a big shipping hub in Asia and is actively involved in R&D
and innovation, which includes initiatives relating to autonomous ports
and autonomous ships. A second set of criteria considered the existence
of a strong governmental focus on developing the Blue Economy, the
degree to which autonomous shipping operations could impact on
socio-economic indicators in particular seafarer supply. This latter set of
criteria led to the inclusion of South Africa and Philippines. The South
African government-led Operation Phakisa is looking at unlocking the
ocean economy and job creation opportunities in the maritime sector.
“The oceans have the potential to contribute up to 177 billion rand to the
Gross Domestic Product and create just over one million jobs by 2033′′
[30]. Philippines is the second largest labour supplying country globally
(with the widest representation across all flags): largest supplier for
Ratings and second largest for Officers [31]. The selection of these ju­
risdictions enabled deeper insight into regional perspectives i.e. Europe,
Asia, Africa.
3.4. Questionnaire (survey)
The online questionnaire was generated using Google Forms.6 The
questionnaire consisted of 14 questions in total. Questions included one
“readiness scale” ranging from 1 to 10 for each key theme and further
open-ended questions to offer participants the opportunity to elaborate.
The benefit of using questionnaire-based surveys is that one has the
potential to obtain specific data from a large sample in a relatively
efficient manner [32]. The questionnaire was piloted and then distrib­
uted to a target group of maritime experts, individuals representing
maritime and port administrations, MET institutions, and seafarers in
the respective jurisdictions. The questionnaire method primarily yielded
data for quantitative analysis while data from the other methods were
primarily qualitatively analysed. However, data from open questions in
the questionnaire also gave qualitative data. Further, the qualitatively
coded data was used as input for quantitative analysis.
3.5. Interviews
A semi-structured interview instrument was generated, consisting of
five (jurisdiction-specific) questions which addressed the nature of the
policies required to prepare the maritime industry to remain relevant
and competitive considering increased automation on board and
remotely controlled/autonomous vessel operations on shore by 2035;
the qualifications/competencies envisaged as necessary for autonomous
vessel operations; the changes that would be required to the existing
education system to attract and train the future workforce; the future
qualification/competencies future maritime educators may require to
prepare graduates for increased automation.
This instrument was primarily and purposively targeted at specific
key informants in the selected jurisdictions. This was done to improve
comprehension of the issues confronting the respondents’ jurisdictions
[and some of their perceptions of underlying causes and influences of
such issues]. A semi-structured approach was taken to help retain the
focus of the research while allowing for new insights and respondent
freedom to contribute what they considered meaningful.
6
Note was taken of the fact that Google services are not available in all na­
tional jurisdictions. It was ensured that the Google Platform was available in all
the selected countries prior to disseminating the questionnaire.
4
Marine Policy 127 (2021) 104428
3.6. Focus group discussions
Focus group discussions were undertaken in South Africa to ascertain
what specific action, if any, government and training institutions are
taking in preparation of MASS. Similar discussions naturally emerged
among industry experts in Philippines during an educational visit there.
These discussions occurred without the overt facilitation of the research
team.7 As such, in the context of this research, the Philippine discussions
are referred to as quasi-focus group discussions.
3.7. Ethics
All the research instruments were cleared for ethical appropriate­
ness, through appropriate assurances of anonymity/confidentiality and
the ensuring of no harm to respondents.
3.8. Respondent profile
A per-country breakdown of the fifty-eight participants (50 male and
8 female) is found in Table 3.
Fig. 1 gives a per country breakdown of the expertise profile of the
research participants.
4. Data analysis
All interviews and focus group discussions were transcribed and
imported into a Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis Software
(CAQDAS). Specifically, Atlas.ti (version 8.4.4) was used for the quali­
tative analysis. There were 150 initial codes generated, including
expertise of respondents, gaps identified, justifications (as follow-up
responses to the perceived level of preparedness), skills required, and
policy and regulations. Following initial analyses, some of the codes
were subsequently grouped according to PESTELE factors for further
analysis per country.
4.1. PESTELE analysis
PESTELE analyses include examinations of the political, economic,
social, technological, environmental, legal, and ethical factors which
may impact on operations. Political factors refer to political will, gov­
ernment stability, stakeholder engagement, geo-political relationships,
and others; economic factors indicate, for example, blue economy,
maritime trade and GDP, and infrastructure; social factors can be un­
derstood as, for instance, career dispositions, traditions, technological
savviness, education system, and opportunity costs of maritime
employment; technological factors include manufacturing and infra­
structure, internet connectivity, and technological options, among
others; environmental factors are regarded as geographical location,
sustainable operations, and others; legal factors are regulatory frame­
work, policies, and implementation process; and finally, ethical factors
are such as loss of livelihood due to automation, equal opportunity,
Table 3
Number of participants per country.
Questionnaire Quasi-/Focus group Interview Total
Norway 4 2 6
Singapore 3 1 4
South Africa 18 14 32
Philippines 12 4 16
7
It was nevertheless ensured that all research ethics requirements were
respected.
Y. de Klerk et al. Marine Policy 127 (2021) 104428

Expertise: Norway Expertise: Singapore

Seafarer 0 Seafarer 1

Regulator 2 Regulator 1

Other 0 Other 0

Industry_consultant 2 Industry_consultant 2

Academic 2 Academic 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Expertise: South Africa Expertise: Philippines

Seafarer 2 Seafarer 4

Regulator 1 Regulator 1

Other 1 Other 2

Industry_consultant 9 Industry_consultant 4

Academic 19 Academic 5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Fig. 1. Expertise profile of participants per country.

philosophical issues concerning the role of machines/technology, vis-
à-vis humanity. A key focus of a PESTELE analysis is to identify and
analyse factors external to an entity (e.g. an organization), over which it
has little or no control and which may have some impact on that entity.
These factors are unique to particular settings and organisations, and in
the case of autonomous shipping, the national jurisdiction, culture and
geopolitical context of the country. Technological literacy, infrastruc­
ture and social acceptance of increased technological advances, as well
as human resource competencies related to the evolving technological
scene, are crucial considerations for countries in this regard.
Once all the documents were coded, statistical data related to the
codes was exported from Atlas.ti to Microsoft Excel and descriptive
statistics for each country determined/extracted based on the ques­
tionnaire, interviews and focus group outcomes. Preparedness scales
from research participant responses were coded as follows:
• 1–3 (the jurisdiction is likely to be unprepared for the chosen
scenario);
• 4–7 (the jurisdiction is likely to be moderately prepared for the
chosen scenario); and
• 8–10 (the jurisdiction is likely to be prepared for the chosen
scenario).
Each individual country’s score was standardised through incorpo­
rating the global mean8 and standard deviation (from this mean) of all
the participants/respondents from the four countries combined. The z-
score for each country was also calculated. Z-scores are also referred to
as standard scores and represent the number of standard deviations from
the mean data point [33]. Normal distribution scores are standardised to
become z-scores in a standard normal curve. This means that the group
8
The global mean refers to the overall mean of the four countries combined
from the total number of respondents.
of data is converted so the mean becomes 0 (zero) and the standard
deviation is 1 (one). This enabled country comparison between scores
that are from different normal distributions by converting the mean to
zero (0) [34].
5. Results
5.1. Qualitative analysis outcomes
5.1.1. Norway
It was found that autonomous shipping is high on the agenda of the
Norwegian government and there is strong collaboration between reg­
ulators, academia and industry through workshops and discussions.
There is a dedicated forum - the Norwegian Forum on Autonomous
Shipping (NFAS) with different working groups - working on autono­
mous shipping. The Norwegian Maritime Authority and Norwegian
Coastal Administration have both visited some educational/training
institutions to discuss the future industry outlook. There is also a dedi­
cated government-funded project called MARKOM2020 which, among
other things, compares Norwegian MET to those in other jurisdictions to
ensure a continuing competitive edge for Norway [35]. Currently there
are auto-crossing and auto-docking tests being carried out on autono­
mous ferries, and telecommunication companies like Telenor and Telia
are also involved in autonomous shipping projects. Autonomous ship­
ping is also seen as a sustainability issue to drive for future.
5.1.2. Singapore
Singapore as a major shipping hub is actively pursuing research and
development, and technological innovation to operationalise autono­
mous shipping under its jurisdiction. Training is considered essential. As
such, the Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) has launched a Maritime
Innovation Lab to look into future competency requirements and the
legal framework as a start to autonomous shipping.

5
Y. de Klerk et al.
5.1.3. South Africa
Most responses related to government’s efforts to alleviate high un­
employment as a priority. Governance, policies and the education sys­
tem were found to be among the challenging areas raised and relate to
lack of having the required human resources. The coastal surveillance
and search and rescue facilities, together with government’s focus on
infrastructure development are however considered by some in a posi­
tive light in terms of the country’s infrastructure preparedness. Basic
infrastructure was however raised as a challenge.
5.1.4. Philippines
Responses from Philippines seemed to represent opposing views;
some deem the country ready whilst others are of opinion that it is still a
long way off.
Having to convince the Maritime Administration to be more flexible
in terms of the seafarer education and training curriculum was
mentioned by respondents as a challenge and the reason why the
country is not yet prepared for the possible change of skillset/compe­
tencies required for the operation of future vessels. Politics, government
bureaucracy, the under-development of port operations and insufficient
budget allocation to the maritime sector, were cited as reasons why
Philippines is not considered as having the required infrastructure to
operationalise autonomous shipping.
The importance of policy framework was emphasised by respondents
from the Philippines and South Africa.
A summary of the PESTELE analyses and skills identified to oper­
ationalise autonomous shipping in each of the jurisdictions follow.
Figs. 2–5 show the outcomes for each of the selected countries for
PESTELE factors and the perception of the skills that are required for a
future of autonomous shipping. In the figures showing the PESTELE
factors, the bars in blue reflect “positive” code groups relating to pro­
active initiatives and elements that contribute positively to a country’s
preparedness. The bars in red, on the other hand, reflect “negative” code
groups that include elements that appear to be a challenge to countries,
and negatively impact on a country’s ability to proactively respond. The
numbers relate to the number of times the particular code groups
occurred for each country.
Furthermore, in respect of skills, “other” included references made to
non-technical i.e. soft skills and training on how to handle panic/crisis
situations. Increased simulation training, situational awareness, artifi­
cial intelligence, and zero and low carbon, environmentally friendly
energy system competences, were also mentioned as skills required in
future.
5.2. Quantitative analysis outcomes
The quantitative data analysis aimed to answer research question
four by looking at the legislative framework, human resource- and
infrastructure preparedness of each country. In this context, the country
mean, minimum and maximum, and global mean9 figures mentioned in
Figs. 6–8, are based on a scale of 1–10; 1 being the lowest and 10 being
the highest state of preparedness for a future of autonomous shipping
with respect to:
• Legislative framework.
• Human resource.
• Infrastructure.
On the 1–10 scale, the range 1–3 was considered as reflecting a state
of unpreparedness, 4–7 of moderate preparedness, and 8–10 a relatively
high state of preparedness. The standard deviation and perceived level
of preparedness per country is also indicated in each of the tables.
The z-scores for each country is shown in the standard normal
9
The global mean is the mean of the four countries’ scores.
6
Marine Policy 127 (2021) 104428
distribution curves as N, S, SA and P for Norway, Singapore, South Africa
and Philippines respectively.
5.2.1. Legislative framework adequacy
Fig. 6 indicates the global mean as 3.25 and global standard devia­
tion is 2.53. Norway and Singapore’s country means are above the
global mean. South Africa and Philippines both have negative z-scores
and their country means are lower than the global mean at 1.72 and 3.18
respectively.
5.2.2. Human resource preparedness
Fig. 7 indicates the global mean as 5.14, which suggests that most
respondents deem their respective countries as being moderately pre­
pared in terms of having the required human resources; the global
standardised deviation is 2.83. Norway and Singapore and Philippine’s
country means are above the global mean. South Africa has a negative z-
score and the country mean is lower than the global mean at 3.28.
5.2.3. Infrastructure readiness
Fig. 8 indicates the statistics in terms of perceived infrastructure
preparedness. South Africa appears least prepared having a negative z-
score and mean of 3, which is below the global mean of 4.46. Philippines
also has a negative z-score, although the mean of 4.09, is only margin­
ally lower than the global mean. Philippines therefore appears to be
perceived as moderately prepared. Norway appears most likely to be
prepared, followed by Singapore as reflected by their respective z-scores
and respective country means of 9 and 7.5 respectively, which are well
above the global mean.
6. Discussion
The findings of this comparative analysis of national preparedness
relating to the maritime policy/legislative framework, societal readiness
and HR development for autonomous vessel operations indicate that
Norway has strong government support in creating an enabling envi­
ronment conducive to research, development, and technological inno­
vation. Similar government support in fostering innovation exists in
Singapore. As has been indicated earlier, Singapore’s recent launch of a
Maritime Innovation Lab in part evidences this. South Africa and
Philippines are lagging behind compared to Norway and Singapore as
indicated in the research findings. Respondents from both countries
cited lack of government initiative and the industry having as its main
priority compliance with current STCW10 requirements and remaining
on the so-called “white list”.11 The challenge was also raised by a
respondent from Philippines regarding the country’s education frame­
work that would require more flexibility and government’s role in
establishing that framework. A recent study undertaken by Urban-Econ
Development Economists (Pty) Ltd for South Africa’s Transport Educa­
tion and Training Authority (TETA) with funding from the Belgium
Development Agency (ENABEL), reported concerns raised by the South
African maritime industry that it is not geared towards Industry 4.0,
noting that legislatively and technologically, the industry is lagging
behind [36]. This sentiment supports the research findings in this study
10
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978, as amended.
11
The so-called “White List” refers to Parties of the International Convention
on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW),
1978, as amended, confirmed by the Maritime Safety Committee to have
communicated information which demonstrates that full and complete effect is
given to the relevant provisions of the Convention (per MSC.1/Circ. 1163 and
1164 latest revisions). Countries tend to prioritise being/remaining on this list
as it forms the basis of having certificates issued by the authority, recognised by
or under the authority of another Party pursuant of Regulation I/10 of the
STCW Convention which permits seafarers serving on foreign-flagged vessels.
Y. de Klerk et al. Marine Policy 127 (2021) 104428

PESTELE Analysis Norway Skills required: Norway

ETHICAL Positive… 8 Technology 5
ETHICAL Negative… 2 Robotics 0

LEGAL Positive… 11 Problem-solving 0

LEGAL Negative… 25 Other 4

Multi-tasking 0
ENVIRONMENTAL Positive… 8
Monitoring versus boredom 0
ENVIRONMENTAL Negative… 0
Mathematics and science 1
TECHNOLOGICAL Positive… 18
Integration ship2shore 0
TECHNOLOGICAL Negative… 2
Experienced seafarer 0
SOCIO-CULTURAL Positive… 15
Engineering 1
SOCIO-CULTURAL Negative… 4
Digital competency 0
ECONOMICAL Positive… 23 Cybersecurity 0
ECONOMICAL Negative… 2 Critical thinking 0
POLITICAL Positive… 26 Computer programming 1
POLITICAL Negative… 3 Automation 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fig. 2. Norway findings.

PESTELE Analysis Singapore Skills required: Singapore

ETHICAL Positive… 2 Technology 3

ETHICAL Negative… 0 Robotics 0
LEGAL Positive… 0 Problem-solving 0

LEGAL Negative… 1 Other 4

Multi-tasking 0
ENVIRONMENTAL Positive… 2
Monitoring versus boredom 1
ENVIRONMENTAL Negative… 0
Mathematics and science 0
TECHNOLOGICAL Positive… 14
Integration ship2shore 0
TECHNOLOGICAL Negative… 0
Experienced seafarer 0
SOCIO-CULTURAL Positive… 5
Engineering 1
SOCIO-CULTURAL Negative… 0
Digital competency 0
ECONOMICAL Positive… 6
Cybersecurity 1
ECONOMICAL Negative… 0 Critical thinking 0
POLITICAL Positive… 5 Computer programming 2
POLITICAL Negative… 0 Automation 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fig. 3. Singapore findings.

PESTELE Analysis South Africa Skills required: South Africa

ETHICAL Positive… 6 Technology 6

ETHICAL Negative… 15 Robotics 6

LEGAL Positive… 0 Problem-solving 8

LEGAL Negative… 49 Other 2

Multi-tasking 0
ENVIRONMENTAL Positive… 7
Monitoring versus boredom 2
ENVIRONMENTAL Negative… 9
Mathematics and science 2
TECHNOLOGICAL Positive… 9
Integration ship2shore 2
TECHNOLOGICAL Negative… 9
Experienced seafarer 2
SOCIO-CULTURAL Positive… 13
Engineering 1
SOCIO-CULTURAL Negative… 35
Digital competency 0
ECONOMICAL Positive… 6 0
Cybersecurity
ECONOMICAL Negative… 20 Critical thinking 0
POLITICAL Positive… 5 Computer programming 3
POLITICAL Negative… 24 Automation 3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fig. 4. South Africa findings.

and in particular as they relate to the skills that have been identified as comparison to students and the education system in Norway. It seems
required. however that the government has realised the need to develop post-
In the case of South Africa, many schools do not have access to school education and training. It has been reported that some initia­
technology or computers and students generally seem to not fare well in tives include addressing the shortfall with regards to STEM subjects, and
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects - in the development of digital skills capacity [36].

7
Y. de Klerk et al. Marine Policy 127 (2021) 104428

PESTELE Analysis Philippines Skills required: Philippines

ETHICAL Positive… 8 Technology 5

ETHICAL Negative… 2 Robotics 1

LEGAL Positive… 10 Problem-solving 1

LEGAL Negative… 27 Other 1

Multi-tasking 0
ENVIRONMENTAL Positive… 1
Monitoring versus boredom 0
ENVIRONMENTAL Negative… 2
Mathematics and science 0
TECHNOLOGICAL Positive… 2
Integration ship2shore 0
TECHNOLOGICAL Negative… 2
Experienced seafarer 3
SOCIO-CULTURAL Positive… 9
Engineering 0
SOCIO-CULTURAL Negative… 8
Digital competency 1
ECONOMICAL Positive… 4 2
Cybersecurity
ECONOMICAL Negative… 8 Critical thinking 1
POLITICAL Positive… 4 Computer programming 3
POLITICAL Negative… 3 Automation 3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fig. 5. Philippines findings.

Fig. 6. Legislative framework.

Fig. 7. HR preparedness.

The difference between countries are evident in this study when possible solutions for improved services, efficiency and safety in the
considering the proactive approach of Norway, Singapore and, to some transport sector. Reform of existing education policies and curriculum
extent, Philippines, in exploring different options and proposals to find were also found to be an area requiring collaboration. Governments,

8
Y. de Klerk et al.
Fig. 8. Infrastructure readiness.
academia and industry should collaborate to envision what a true 21st
century curriculum should entail [9]. The ‘triple helix’ model of
university-industry-government interactions is increasingly driving
innovation [15]. The model distinguishes between the generation of
wealth (industry), novelty production (academia) and public control
(government) [37]. Both Norway and Singapore appear to have taken
policy actions that evidence this concept.
In Norway, a comprehensive maritime strategy for research, devel­
opment and innovation was developed by the maritime stakeholders/
actors on behalf of the Norwegian government. The Maritim21 strategy
is aimed at contributing to sustainable growth and value creation
through linking authorities, the policy instrument, the business com­
munity, organisations and research communities [38]. Similarly,
Singapore enjoys strong collaboration between government agencies
and administrators, industry and academia. Its strategic geographic port
location, rule of law, skills, good infrastructure, and a government that is
familiar with business needs are all contributing to its success in terms of
maritime-related research, development and innovation [39].
Not all countries have embraced or operationalised the triple helix
concept. In South Africa, despite the government-led Operation Phakisa,
the country does not appear to have an explicit national maritime
cluster. Neither does Philippines apparently. South Africa has a
Comprehensive Maritime Transport Policy (CMTP) which was launched
in 2017 and refers to innovation, research and development and using
technology to enhance the industry [40]. The policy appears, however,
to be somewhat unclear in its implementation, as not all activities and
actions are explicitly listed in the implementation timetable. The
“Philippines: Maritime Industry Development Plan (MIDP) 2019–2028′′
was launched in December 2018 and includes eight priority pro­
grammes. Most relevant to this discussion are the “Development of a
Global Maritime Hub” and establishment of a “Maritime Innovation and
Knowledge Centre”. The plan highlights the role of government in of­
fering significant and impactful assistance to visionaries; investing in the
necessary technology, research infrastructure, and R&D researchers;
implementing suitable amendments in education, the investment
climate, and trade; and removing obstacles and blockages to innovative
proposals in governing structures [41]. The operationalisation of these
laudable plans is not as apparent as that of similar plans in Norway and
Singapore. Comprehensive collaboration amongst all stakeholders will
prove to be crucial in reaching the targets in the MIDP. This is also true
for South Africa’s Operation Phakisa and its CMTP.
It is noteworthy that the research findings indicate that Norway,
Singapore and Philippines are actively collaborating nationally, or
intending to collaborate with each other and/or with other jurisdictions.
A supportive government, together with good public policy frameworks
9
Marine Policy 127 (2021) 104428
allowing for optimal agenda setting, policy formulation through to
policy implementation and evaluation [42] are obvious influencing
factors for Norway and Singapore’s relatively high levels of prepared­
ness to consider/operationalise autonomous shipping. Essential to these
policy frameworks in both jurisdictions is the involvement of all key
stakeholders through vibrant maritime clusters, in particular govern­
ment agencies, industry and academia (the triple helix concept). The
resulting policies enhance job creation opportunities and facilitate bet­
ter focussed investments in novel education and training programmes,
technological advancements and start-ups in emerging maritime eco­
nomic sectors [43].
Goal 17 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG
17) of “Partnerships for the Goals”, echoes the need for “partnerships
among governments, the private sector and civil society” to implement a
sustainable development agenda and further notes that “inclusive
partnerships built upon principles and values, a shared vision, and
shared goals that place people and the planet at the centre, are needed at
the global, regional, national and local level” [44 paragraph 1].
Impacting the digital disruption discussed in this paper are wider
socio-economic, environmental, geopolitical and demographic factors
that interrelate in different ways, influence one another, and which
drive or resist change. Sustainability appears to be a major driving force
for some countries in terms of finding more efficient transport solutions,
as is the case in Norway and reflected in the country’s new draft
transportation plan.
In terms of labour, engagement from governments, industry and
education/training institutions is recognised as necessary when
reviewing training approaches, methods, content and assessment forms
to ensure that industry has the right skills available to respond to global
developments, trends and challenges [45]. Many gaps identified by
countries in this study relate to education and human resource chal­
lenges, whilst the required skills identified relate to technology, com­
puter programming, automation, cybersecurity and
non-technical/affective abilities. These are found to be similar to those
identified in IAMU’s Global Maritime Professional study [10] referred to
earlier in the paper.
7. Conclusion
The results indicated that no country is fully prepared at this stage to
operationalise autonomous shipping, although the governments of
Norway and Singapore are prioritising this and therefore appear to be
quite advanced. Developed countries are generally in a stronger position
to leverage technological solutions to improve maritime transport and
combat climate change. Research, development and innovation are used
Y. de Klerk et al.
as enablers to effect change and therefore governments create an envi­
ronment conducive for collaboration amongst all stakeholders through
clear policies and strategies. Both South Africa and Philippines seem to
be occupied with giving full and complete effect to the extant STCW
Convention, and as such consideration for the 4th Industrial Revolution
and autonomous shipping are not prioritised, nor is there evidence of
any major technological initiatives in terms of sustainability for the
maritime transport sector. Should South Africa and Philippines wish to
prepare for autonomous shipping operations by 2035, their respective
maritime transport policies require updating to reflect this. Likewise,
(maritime) education policies and those related to science and tech­
nology need to reflect clear strategies of how the country wishes to
address and properly consider national actions in respect of autonomous
shipping and if/how it should be prioritised and/or operationalised.
There seemed to be uncertainty among respondents as to the exact
nature of human resource requirements needed fifteen years from now.
Recurring education and training challenges raised include a lack of the
desired educational framework and the need to integrate more advanced
technology into the MET curriculum, without losing out on the skills
required for the contemporary shipping industry. The seafaring skills of
today are expected to be in shortage in 2035. A vital element in guar­
anteeing that the required human resources are available relates to
knowledge sharing through collaboration. Government, industry and
academia need to ensure the education system produces the required
skills needed by industry. Optimal policies and legislation, human re­
sources and infrastructure as well as acceptance from the broader soci­
ety are all required in this context.
In conclusion, the overall perceived national preparedness of the
countries to operationalise autonomous shipping by 2035 is given in
Table 4.
7.1. Contribution to the literature and policy practice
The research aimed to demonstrate the utilisation of scenario plan­
ning as a mechanism in policy gap analysis to assist governments stra­
tegically prepare for an uncertain future by providing a conceptual
framework that considers the legislative, human resource, and infra­
structure readiness of a country. Scenario planning may be used as an
instrument by governments to interrogate stakeholders’ mindset
regarding adapting to different possible autonomous futures.
The economic growth of a country is directly impacted by political
factors such as political will, government stability and legal factors
which relate to the legislative framework and include policies and reg­
ulations. In this context policies can include maritime-, education-, and
technology policies. National Maritime Education and Training (MET)
systems need to be able to anticipate future skills to enhance national
adaptation to changing requirements rather than an exclusive focus on
extant international law, in this case the STCW, 1978 as amended. The
role of MET as an enabler for national economic development needs to
be realised through policies that consider the interest of all stakeholders
in an ethical and sustainable manner.
Table 4
Overall level of preparedness of each country.
Norway Singapore South Africa Philippines
Regulatory 7.5 7.25 1.72 3.18
preparedness
HR preparedness 8.75 7.5 3.28 6 difficult task that in hindsight is seldom completely valid. The use of
Infrastructure 9 7.5 3 4.09
preparedness
Overall 8.42 7.41 2.67 4.42
preparedness Very high High Low Moderate
(quantitative likelihood to likelihood likelihood likelihood to
and be prepared to be to be be prepared
qualitative) prepared prepared
Note. Based on a scale of 1–10 – 1 being lowest and 10 highest.
10
Marine Policy 127 (2021) 104428
Stakeholder engagement has been identified as a crucial element in
advancing any country’s position. In the current volatile, uncertain,
complex and ambiguous (VUCA) environment this is even more the case.
Close(r) collaboration between government, industry and academia is
required to weather the approaching autonomous storm.
To adapt a definition given by Dye [46], public policy is what gov­
ernments do (or choose not to do), the reasons for their (in)action and
the consequences of their choices. While the contents of any policy and
their place on the national agenda may be debated, the key issue for all
Countries (including those studied here) is the existence of relevant
policies and the nature of the processes that lead to such policies. A
deontological argument can be made that it is the responsibility of States
to have relevant policies in place and perhaps even more importantly for
the establishing of clear, transparent and effective processes that bring
stakeholders together to discuss policies and their place on the national
agenda. The clearer these processes are to all stakeholders, the better for
the State. Countries that fail in this respect are often consigned to
playing “catch-up” in respect of impactful global trends.
7.2. Recommendations
Governments should engage more rigorously in the preparation to
operationalise autonomous shipping. There is the need to emphasise
that “preparation” in this context includes both the situations where
governments actively choose to take certain actions in terms of oper­
ationalising autonomous shipping, as well as those where governments
arrive at the conclusion of choosing not to enhance (neither want/need)
automation. In both cases, a government will need a rigorous mecha­
nism to “respond to” the ongoing discourse and have a policy framework
to support processes of deliberation and action. Recommended consid­
erations include:
i. Closer collaboration between government, industry and
academia to ensure the required skills are identified and readily
available;
ii. Establishment of a visible and unequivocal national maritime
cluster in South Africa and Philippines to align national policies
and education programmes with global and local industry needs
and towards achieving the UN SDGs;
iii. Mechanisms to generate collaborative dialogue between stake­
holders to generate different future scenarios through participa­
tory processes and plan autonomous shipping contingencies
accordingly;
iv. Development and communications of clear steps for the imple­
mentation of policies, as those found in the CMTP and MIDP.
7.3. Limitations and future research
The scenarios in this study were generated following a systematic
literature review which was generalised. Stakeholder participatory
processes may have yielded more probable scenarios for each of the
chosen countries and could therefore have resulted in an even more
plausible analysis of the preparedness of each country to operationalise
autonomous shipping. The process of determining the most plausible
scenario can be argued to be limited in its exhaustiveness. However, this
speaks to issues related to certainty in all scenario planning research.
History and research teach us that, so far, accurate prediction in scenario
generation and consequential planning has shown itself to be a very
emerging techniques like simulation and modelling for scenario plan­
ning may be helpful in this respect. Such simulations/modelling should
consider to the largest extent possible, the pertinent influences on and
determinants for the preparation and operationalisation of autonomous
shipping and indeed, any other disruptive driver. Another limitation to
be considered relates to the unequal sample size and distribution of
respondent expertise in the respective countries that formed part of this
Y. de Klerk et al. Marine Policy 127 (2021) 104428

research. Although uniform application of the various data collection [19] V. Kaushik, C.A. Walsh, Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for
social work research, Soc. Sci. 8 (9) (2019) 255 (Sep.).
methods were not possible in each of the countries, the authors are
[20] J.W. Creswell, J.D. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and
confident that the key data for each country was obtained and that it is a Mixed Methods Approaches, fifth ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2018
true reflection of that country’s reality. Future research would benefit (no. Book, Whole).
from the exploration of more authentic methods of scenario generation [21] M.E. Manuel, Maritime Risk and Organizational Learning, Routledge; CRC Press,
London, 2011.
and also include the participation of a wider group of key stakeholders [22] D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D.G. Altman, The PRISMA Group, Preferred
(with greater sample sizes) in each country when generating country- reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement,
specific scenarios. A more equal distribution of expertise per country PLoS Med. 6 (7) (2009), e1000097, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pmed.1000097.
would strengthen the validity of the results. [23] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], Definitions and Terms Used
Within the DDC Pages, https://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/glossary/
Authors statement glossary_s.html. (Accessed 2020).
[24] Y. Kishita, K. Hara, M. Uwasu, Y. Umeda, Research needs and challenges faced in
supporting scenario design in sustainability science: a literature review, Sustain.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Sci. 11 (2016) 331–347, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0340-6.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence [25] F.R. Baumgartner, B.D. Jones, P.B. Mortensen, Punctuated equilibrium theory:
explaining stability and change in public policymaking, in: C.M. Wieble, P.
the work reported in this paper. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process, fourth ed., Routledge, New York,
NY, 2018, pp. 55–102.
References [26] J.N. Maack, Scenario analysis: a tool for task managers. Social Development
Papers: Social Analysis, Selected Tools and Techniques, 36, 2001, 62–87.
[27] The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, CGMA Tool: Scenario
[1] H. Peng ’Ghost Port’: Asia’s First Fully-automated Port Begins Operations in
Planning - Providing Insight for Impact, 2015. [Online]. https://www.cgma.org
Qingdao, CGTN. https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d637a4e31677a4d/share_p.html.
/Resources/Tools/DownloadableDocuments/scenario-planning-tool.pdf.
(Accessed 2019).
[28] L.M. Given, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, SAGE
[2] Port of Rotterdam. The Robot is Coming, https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/
Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 2008, https://doi.org/10.4135/
doing-business/logistics/cargo/containers/50-years-of-containers/the-robot-is-co
9781412963909.
ming. (Accessed 2019).
[29] Laerd Dissertation, Principles of Non-probability Sampling, Lund Research Ltd,
[3] PSA Singapore. Our business: Future Terminals, https://www.singaporepsa.com/o
2012. https://dissertation.laerd.com/non-probability-sampling.php.
ur-business/terminals/future-terminals. (accessed 2019).
[30] The Presidency: Republic of South Africa. Address by His Excellency President
[4] International Maritime Organization [IMO], MSC 100/INF.3: Regulatory Scoping
Jacob Zuma at the Operation Phakisa: Unlocking the Economic Potential of the
Exercise for the Use of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS), IMO, 2018.
Ocean Economy Open Day, https://www.operationphakisa.gov.za/cc/Document
[5] Korea Institute of Marine Science & Technology Promotion [KIMST], Technology
s/Open%20Day%20Operation%20Phakisa%20President%20Speech.pdf.
Assessment: Autonomous Ships (no. Generic), KIMST, Seoul, 2018.
(Accessed 25 June 2020).
[6] M.R. Othman, G.J. Bruce, S.A. Hamid, The strength of Malaysian maritime cluster:
[31] Dalian Maritime University (DMU), Dearsley Maritime Consulting Ltd, BIMCO/ISF
the development of maritime policy, Ocean Coast. Manag. 54 (8) (2011) 557–568,
Manpower Report: The Global Supply and Demand for Seafarers in 2015, BIMCO,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.02.004.
London, 2015.
[7] J. Rasmussen, Maritime Governance and Control: Rights and Obligations of States
[32] R.A. Singleton Jr., B.C. Straits, Approaches to Social Research, sixth ed., Oxford
in Maritime Safety, Security and Environmental Protection, WMU Publications,
University Press, Oxford, 2018.
Malmö, 2016.
[33] F.J. Gravetter, L.B. Wallnau, Statistics for the behavioral sciences, ninth ed.,
[8] I.G. Koliousis, S. Papadimitriou, E. Riza, P.J. Stavroulakis, V. Tsioumas, Strategy,
Wadsworth - Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA, 2013.
policy, and the formulation of maritime cluster typologies, Mar. Policy 86 (2017)
[34] Laerd Statistics Standard Score, https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/s
31–38.
tandard-score.php. (Accessed 2019).
[9] World Economic Forum [WEF], The Future of Jobs: Employment, Skills and
[35] T. Resnes, H. Eide, J.M. Trovåg, T.E. Jensen, MARKOM 2020 Project T-79 Report,
Workforce Strategy for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, WEF, Geneva, 2016.
NTNU, 2017 ([Online]. Available), https://hvlopen.brage.unit.no/hvlopen
[10] International Association of Maritime Universities (IAMU), Global Maritime
-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2594233/resnes.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y.
Professional: Body of Knowledge, International Association of Maritime
[36] ENABEL, Urban-Econ, TETA, Assessment of Selected TVET Colleges to Offer
Universities (IAMU), Tokyo, 2019.
Maritime Programmes, 2019. [Online]. https://www.teta.org.za/documents/
[11] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD], Review of
TVET_Readiness_Assessment_to_offer_MET_Report.pdf.
Maritime Transport, 2018, United Nations, New York, 2018.
[37] L. Leydesdorff, M. Meyer, Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation
[12] World Maritime University, Transport 2040: Automation, Technology,
systems: introduction to the special issue, Res. Policy 35 (10) (2006) 1441–1449.
Employment - The Future of Work, World Maritime University [WMU], Malmö,
[38] Maritim21 SecretariatMaritim21. https://www.maritim21.no/. (accessed).
Sweden, 2019.
[39] MPA Singapore and Maritime Singapore, International Maritime Centre 2030:
[13] G. Meadow, D. Ridgwell, D. Kelly, Autonomous Shipping - Putting the Human Back
Strategic Review, MPA & Maritime Singapore, Singapore, 2017.
in the Headlines, IMarEST, 2018 (Online), https://www.imarest.org/reports/
[40] Comprehensive Maritime Transport Policy for South Africa, 2017.
1009-autonomous-shipping/file.
[41] Philippines: Maritime Industry Development Plan (MIDP) 2019-2028, 2018.
[14] J.L. Suárez de Vivero, J.C. Rodríguez Mateos, D. Florido del Corral, Geopolitical
[42] W. Jann, K. Wegrich, Theories of the policy cycle, in: F. Fischer, G.J. Miller, M.
factors of maritime policies and marine spatial planning: state, regions, and
S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods,
geographical planning scope, Mar. Policy 33 (4) (2009) 624–634, https://doi.org/
CRC Press of Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 2007, pp. 43–62.
10.1016/j.marpol.2008.12.010 (2009/07/01/).
[43] J.-S. Fritz, J. Hanus, The European Integrated Maritime Policy: the next five years,
[15] H. Etzkowitz, Innovation in innovation: the triple helix of university-industry-
Mar. Policy 53 (2015) 1–4.
government relations, Soc. Sci. Inf. 42 (3) (2003) 293–337.
[44] United Nations Goal 17: Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable
[16] W. Jann, K. Wegrich, Theories of the policy cycle, in: F. Fischer, G.J. Miller, M.
Development, United Nations. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theories, Politics and
globalpartnerships/. (Accessed).
Methods, CRC Press (Taylor & Francis Group), London, 2007, pp. 43–62.
[45] World Maritime University, Marine Learning Systems, New Wave Media, Maritime
[17] R.B. Johnson, A.J. Onwuegbuzie, Mixed methods research: a research paradigm
Training Insights Database (MarTID): 2019 Training Practices Report, World
whose time has come, Educ. Res. 33 (7) (2004) 14–26 (October).
Maritime University; Marine Learning Systems; New Wave Media, 2019 ([Online].
[18] B. Frey, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and
Available), http://scholar.wmu.se/martid/2019-report.
Evaluation, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, 2018, https://doi.org/
[46] T.R. Dye, Understanding Public Policy, fifteenth ed., Pearson, Boston, 2017.
10.4135/9781506326139.

11