See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315870878

Risk assessment of dry bulk cargo operations using Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) method

Conference Paper · January 2016

DOI: 10.1109/ICICTM.2016.7890792

CITATIONS READS

3 594

3 authors, including:

Roshamida Abd Jamil Mohamad Abu Zarim

Ecole Centrale de Nantes National Defence University of Malaysia
9 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   54 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

heave buoy Wave energy convertor View project

Increased Safety & Robust Certification for ditching of Aircrafts & Helicopters (SARAH) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamad Abu Zarim on 23 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2016 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICTM), 16th - 17th May 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

RISK ASSESSMENT OF DRY BULK CARGO OPERATIONS USING ANALYTIC

HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) METHOD

Roshamida A.J1 , Mohamad Abu Ubaidah Amir2, Zulkifly M. R.3

1,2,3Department of Science and Maritime Technology,

Faculty of Defence Science and Technology,
National Defense University of Malaysia.

Corresponding Author Email: roshamida@upnm.edu.my

Abstract Hierarchy Process to measure the

Risk assessment is a vital for any operational risk of bulk cargo operation

industry to characterize the hazards and within seaport. Therefore, the pairwise

decision making on its control options. comparisons between factors in the

Risk assessment comprise 3 stages of hierarchy could applied linguistic terms

process which are risk identification, risk and the calculation of weightage to

estimation and risk evaluation. In the case measure the operational risk of bulk cargo

of seaport terminal operation, it is crucial operation within seaport.

for seaport to determine possible risks.

Keywords: Analytic Hierarchy Process
This study review a qualitative decision
(AHP) ; risk assessment; decision-making;
making method known as Analytic
linguistic terms; Consistency Ratio (CR).
Hierarchy Process (AHP) for assessing
the risk of the dry bulk cargo operations
within seaport terminal. A brainstorming
approach has undertaken to identify the
risk attributes to operational process of dry
bulk cargo. Using the real live data from
the case study, the dry bulk cargo
operations risk ranking was measured to
be an indicator in decision making on risk
control options and evaluation of its
effectiveness towards each risk factor
identified in this study. It shows that AHP
method is good tools to converting
qualitative measures which used a set of
linguistic terms in describing the
relationship between risk factors in the
hierarchy into quantitative measures using
mathematical calculation through Analytic

978-1-5090-0412-6/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE 146

2016 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICTM), 16th - 17th May 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Background degrees is the fact of human decision

making which involves ambiguity,
Bulk cargoes are shipped in large
uncertainty and imprecision.
and unpackaged amounts. These dry bulk
commodities usually divided into two
Since the evaluation of the risk is
categories; major bulks and minor bulks.
associated with uncertainty, it is usually
Examples of major dry bulk commodities
difficult to quantify it. An efficient way to
are coal, ore and grain. Meanwhile Minor
express risk levels in bulk operations
bulks are steels, sugars and cement
within seaport is to use qualitative
clinkers. Bulk activity at the port terminal is
descriptors. This study review the
a high risk activity. Therefore, risk
proposal of converting qualitative
management is vital in order to sustain the
measures into quantitative measures
bulk terminal operations.
using mathematical calculation through
Analytic Hierarchy Process to measure the
Risk management is the decision­
operational risk of bulk cargo operation
making process whereby actions to
within seaport which known as a
identify and mitigate are taken accordingly
structured multi- attributes decision
from the outcome of risk assessment. With
method. This technique can be use
that in mind, risk assessment is a
quantitatively and qualitatively and it has
systematic process for assessing the
the capability to check and reduce the
impact, occurrence, and the outcome of
inconsistency of experts' judgment
human activities involving products or
especially in assessing risk. AHP provides
systems with hazardous characteristics
group decision making in form of
[1 ].
weightage trough general agreement
In risk assessment, it is convenient using geometric mean of the individual
to assess the risk using qualitative experts' judgments.
descriptor which adopt the linguistic terms.
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
This is due to limitation when the analyst
or experts sometimes cannot provide the The AHP proposed by Prof Saaty

exact estimates parameters in assessing uses a multi-level hierarchical structure of

risk. They prefer to assess risk using objectives, criteria and alternatives and

linguistic terms rather than numerical the approach can be used to solve

values. Linguistic terms are well complex decision problems [3]. The

associated with belief degree where an method also allows decision makers to

analyst or expert tends to make judgement model difficult problem in a hierarchical

based on their experiences and structure. The weights and relative

knowledge [2]. Indeed, the usage of belief importance of the decision criteria in each

147
2016 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICTM), 16th - 17th May 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

hierarchy can be acquired using the Linguistic Terms and Belief Degree
Concept
pairwise comparison technique. This is
because each element within the Most of the criteria identified are
operational risk contributes differently to qualitative in nature due to the reliance of
risk likelihood and consequences severity the belief degree and often can only be
[2]. An overall preference of the represented by subjective judgments [2].
alternatives is obtained based on the Despite the fact, AHP can well deal with
weights and relative importance qualitative data and thus is selected to
calculated. develop the Risk Control Options (RCOs)
to mitigating and reducing risk in bulk
The aspect of consistency of
cargo operation.
pairwise is important because a decision
maker is often not able to express Generally, AHP is a decision
consistent preferences in case of several making model that aids human in making
criteria. If the comparisons are not decisions. It consist three part of
perfectly consistent, a mechanism for processes which includes identifying and
improving consistency is provided such as organising decision objectives, criteria
consistency ratio calculation [4]. In constraints Saaty and alternatives into a
general, the AHP consists of the following hierarchy [4].
four steps. Firstly, the process starts with
Then, based on pair intelligent
the selection of criteria. Then, follow with
evaluation judgments by means of
the evaluation of the relative importance of
pairwise comparisons, AHP integrates
selected criteria using pairwise
both criteria magnitude and alternative
comparisons. After that, using same
preference measures into a single overall
method of pairwise comparison, each
score for ranking decision alternatives [5].
alternative relative to each other on the
The algorithm result gives the relatives
basis of each selection criteria will be
importance of alternative course of action.
evaluated. Lastly, combination of the
It is a famous technique for incorporating
ratings acquired in evaluation of relative
qualitative and quantitative criteria in
importance of selected criteria and each
decision making.
alternative relative to each other on the
basis of each selection criteria to obtain an
AHP derives ratio scales of relative
overall relative rating for each alternative
magnitudes of a set of factors by making
(Figure 1) [4].
paired comparisons. It proceeds from
judgements on comparison with respect to
dominance, which is the generic term for
expressing importance, preference or

148
2016 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICTM), 16th - 17th May 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Conduct a brainstorming
session with experts Identify the varies operations and risk
(Brainstorming Approach) � elements in bulk cargo operations
-

. -- -----t-------------------------------I--l
Construct fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices of likelihood and consequences : A I
�IHI
Ip
I
.
seventy .
usmg AHP
'V I I
L.

I I
__

Estimate weight of each attribute in the hierarchy

'V

I Check the consistency of the matrices

I

� Yes I
No
I
I

t t
1
1 Evaluation of likelihood and acquire the Evaluation of consequence severity and
1
1 overall priority for risk attributes acquire the overall priority for risk attributes
1
1
1
identified in bulk cargo operations identified in bulk cargo operations within
1
1 within seaport seaport

I I
1

�
1
1
1
-------------------------------- ----------------------------------

Measure the operational risk level of each elements based on likelihood and
severity criteria using risk matrix

-------------------------------- t --------------------------------- �

: A�
I Identification of risk control options in dry bulk cargo operations (RCOs) I
I H j:
I
t Ip�,
L.

I I
__

1
Evaluate the effectiveness of risk control options (RCOs)
�---------------------------
1
1
_______________________________ ______
1

I Decision making: List of preference of each risk control option (RCO)

I
Figure 1: Flowchart of Risk Assessment and Decision Making using AHP

149
2016 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICTM), 16th - 17th May 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

likelihood to numerical representation Intensity of Definition Explanati

importannce on
according to the strength of that
1 Equal Two
dominance and then derives a ratio scale
importance activities
from 1 to 9 [4]. contribute
equally to
the
In a typical AHP method, experts
objective
have to give a definite number within a 1- 3 Moderate Experienc
9 scale to the pair-wise comparison so Importance e and
judgement
that the priority vector can be computed. slightly
Assume two factors of F1 and F2, if F1 favour one
activity
and F2 are equally important, then it has a over
scale of 1; if F1 is weakly more important another
5 Strong Experienc
than F2, then it has a scale of 3; scales of
Importance e and
5, 7 and 9 are used to describe strongly judgement
strongly
more important, very strongly more
favour one
important and absolutely more important, activity
over
respectively. Even scales of 2, 4, 6 and 8
another
are used to compromise slight difference 7 Very strong An activity
between two classifications. The or is
demonstrat favoured
corresponding reciprocals 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ed very
1/5, 1/6, 1/7, 1/8 and 1/9 are used for the importance strongly
over
reverse comparison. For instance, the another,
reverse comparison refers to F2 its
dominanc
comparing to F1 [4]. e
demonstra
The fundamental scale is a scale ted in
practice
of absolute numbers used to assign
9 Extreme The
numerical values to judgments made by importance evidence
favouring
comparing two factors with the smaller
one
element used as the unit and the larger activity
over
one assigned a value from this scale as a
another is
multiple of that unit. of the
highest
possible
Table 1: The fundamental scale of
order of
judgment (adopted from Saaty [4]) affirmation

150
2016 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICTM), 16th - 17th May 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

2 , 4, 6, 8 For Sometime From all the paired comparison,

compromise s one
the priorities are calculated and been
between the needs to
above interpolate exhibit on the right of the matrix. Priorities
values a
are numerical ranks measured on a ratio
compromi
se scale which used to measure weight. If the
judgement
judgement are perfectly consistence, CR=
numericall
y because 0, the local priorities obtain by adding the
there is no
value in each row and dividing by the sum
good word
to of all the judgements [4].
describe it
Reciprocal If activity i A In the first step, the process of risk
value has one of compariso
the above n management for port operations carried
nonzero mandated out qualitatively, is developed and
numbers by
assigned to choosing integrated into the system. In the second
it when the stage, high risk areas are discussed in
compared smaller
with activity element more detail, and the risk of port activities is
j, thenj has as the unit evaluated quantitatively. This assessment
reciprocal to
value when estimate covers both the probability and
compared the larger consequences of a large number of
with i one as a
multiple of possible accidents in a balanced way.
that unit
Methodology: Analytic Hierarchy
The set of judgements can be Process (AHP)
represented in a square matrix in which
the set of factors is compared with itself. AHP derives scales of values from

Each judgement represents the pairwise comparisons in conjunction with

dominance of an element in the column on ratings and is suitable for multi-objective,

the left over an element in the row on top. multi-criterion, and multi-actor decisions

It shows which element is more important with any number of alternatives. AHP is

for the element on the left over with the comprised of three main principles:

element at the top of the matrix using the decomposition of the structure,

1-9 scale shown in Table 1. If the element comparison of judgments, and hierarchical

on the left is less important than that on composition or synthesis of priorities.

top of the matrix, a reciprocal value is Decomposing a decision problem into its

assigned to the corresponding position in constituent parts facilitates building

the matrix hierarchies of criteria to determine the

importance of each criterion.

151
2016 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICTM), 16th - 17th May 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Step by step of assessing the Equipment

operational risk element in this will be impact and
discussed such as following: failure
Shearing and
Step 1: Identify various risk factors in
entanglement
varying bulk cargo operation within
due to rotating
seaport.
equipment

The first step in this study is to Vessel

understand the bulk cargo operations accidentlgroun

within port and terminal handling. Then, ding

varies risk factors in the bulk cargo High

operations will be identified. It is Disruption by turnaround

R2
noteworthy that the more detailed the Vessel time of vessel

operations procedure is described, the resulting slow

more useful information to identify the risk productivity of

factors of the operations will be obtained. loading and

This step is carried by brainstorming discharging

approach. Upgrading
work resulting
Risk factors Abb Contributing
limited
re- elements
Limited operations
viati
space/ space R3 area
on
congestion Poor condition
Limited
and limited
number of
space of
equipment and
warehouse
facility
Incompetent
Failure of resulting low
staff and
equipment volume cargo
R1 negative
and facility handling
Human attitude
(mechanical) Aging, poor
related error Lack of safety
condition and R4
and awareness
lack of reliable
psychosocial and safety
equipment and
work practices
facilities
Inexperienced
handler

152
2016 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICTM), 16th - 17th May 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Excessive criteria using risk matrix approach. This

workload due approach is discussed in step 2.
to insufficient
Step 2: Pairwise comparison matrices
man power
of Likelihood and Consequences
Outsource
severity criteria procedure.
contractors not
comply with Analytical Hierarchy Process
Service (AHP) aids human in making decisions, it
Lending is a three part process which includes
Agreement identifying and organising decision
(SLA) objectives, criteria constraints and
Complication Cargo spillage alternatives into a hierarchy [4].
of Cargo R5 Cargo damage
Repetition of In this study, to determine the

motion weight of each risk element, an expert's

judgement are analyse in form of pair wise
Poor visibility
comparisons based on linguistic terms
Back pain due
which have been allocated with
to certain
corresponding crisp number as detailed in
manual
Ergonomics R6 table 1.
handling
Exerting
The pairwise comparison
considerable
procedure by numbered experts stated as
physical effort
follows [2]:
to complete a
motion (1 I.,
j
- (1 )

Dust
While reverse comparison can be
appearance
modelled as follows:
Health Issues R7 Dehydration
Lung diseases 1
(1)", 1- = C/, i.j-
(2)
Eyes infections

Table 2 : List of risk factors identified Where:

Then, the operational risk factors (1 I.,

j
- is the relative importance by

identified will be measured based on two comparing events i and j while A n x n

main criteria, likelihood and severity pairwise comparison matrix, A can be

acquire as shown below:

153
2016 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICTM), 16th - 17th May 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

(. a1,1 a1,2 rio is nth root of product of the values in

0:..')
aZ,1 aZ,2 aZ,1
A = :: :: (3) each row, a j ,n and n denotes the number
" II

an,1 an,2 a n,n of criteria.

The number of comparison can be (5)

--
obtained from equation below:
Finally, in order to control and
n "1i-n
Number of comparisons =
2 ensure accuracy in the result of this
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
After all risk factors had been pairwise method, consistency ratio for each of the
comparison, the weight of each element matrices needs to be analysed.
then calculated in step 3.
Step 4: Consistency ratio calculation

R1
Consequences The consistency ratio (CR) is used
Bulk cargo R2
severity to estimate the consistency of the pairwise
operational R3
risk comparison. It can be obtaining using
assessmen Likelihood R4 equation (6):

R5
CR=CIIRI (6)
R6

R7 Prof. Saaty proved that for

consistent reciprocal matrix, the largest
Eigen value is equal to the size of
Figure 2: Generic model for drybulk cargo
comparison matrix or Amax= n [4]. Then,
operational risk assessment using AHP
there is measurement for consistency,
(Adopt and edited from
called consistency index as deviation or
C. Mabrouki et al [5])
degree of consistency using the following

Step 3: Weighting vector calculation formula

Am = -rl
The weight (priority vector) of each C1 = (7)
n- 1
element then will be computed using the
geometric mean [2]. The weighing vector Before calculating the Amax, it is convenient

or also known as priority vector can be to calculate the priority row value first. It

calculated as follows can be done using equation (8) as follows:

(8)
(4)

or;
Where:

154
2016 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICTM), 16th - 17th May 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

�= = Sc1 , W1 + Sc2 . WZ + Sc3 · W3 + ., .. + judgement need to be revised to obtain a

S en· W i, consistent opinion [2]. For instance, if the
(9)
CR is 38.8%, it is too inconsistent and

Amax denotes the maximum weight subject to be revised.

value of the n-by-n comparison matrix. It is

Step 5: Evaluation of Likelihood and
obtained from the summation of products
consequence severity and acquire
between weighing vector of each element
overall priority by present them into a
and the sum of columns of the comparison
hierarchy
matrix. The formula is summarising as
equation (8) or also can be done using In this step, the risk factors for the
equation (9). CI denotes the consistency likelihood and consequences severity
index and can be defined using equation criteria will be evaluated by repeating step
(7). Prof. Saaty also proposed that CI 3 to 5 of this research methodology. It is
need to be compared with another involved the pairwise comparison
appropriate index value to make it matrices, weighing vector calculation and
functional. It is referring to the Random consistency ratio calculation using the
Consistency Index (RI) [4]. The origin of RI
is from random generated reciprocal Table 6: Risk level description

matrix using scale '�9 )B , ... , 1, ... , 8, 9 which Risk Category Description
Low No mitigation
is done by Prof. Saaty [4]. It is done to get
required
the random consistency index and to see Moderate Should be
High mitigated with
if it is about 10% or less of the consistency
engineering
ratio. The average random consistency and/or
administrative
index of sample size 500 matrices is
controls
shown in table 3: considering the
cost effective of
mitigating
Table 3: Random Consistency Index (RI)
procedure. Also
[2] known as "As low
as reasonable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 practical" region.
N
0 1 2 3 4 5 Extreme Should be
0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
mitigated with
F<
I 5 9 1 2 3 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5
engineering
8 2 4 2 1 5 9 1 8 6 7 9 and/or
administrative
If the value of consistency ratio is controls without
considering the
smaller or equal to 10%, the inconsistency cost of mitigating
is acceptable, otherwise if the consistency procedure.

ratio larger than 10%, the subjective

155
2016 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICTM), 16th - 17th May 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

scale proposed by Saaty [3] (Table 1). The final step of developing risk
After that, the overall priority will be matrix approach is to translate the
obtained from analyse the calculated identified criteria and its range into the
normalized weight for all the risk factors. matrix. The experts involved in this study
Then, they will be presented into hierarchy will make judgement and fill the matrix
structure to show the primary importance according to their knowledge and
and rank. Obtained data will be presented experience.
in a table such as in table 4.
Then, the risk level for each risk
Step 6: Risk Matrix Approach element will be determined from the
procedure matrices. The levels are divided into 4
categories such as low, moderate, high,
Risk matrix approach uses ranges
extreme. The descriptions of each level
of severity consequences and likelihood
are as in Table 6.
as the axes in determining the risk level of
identified risk factors. The benefit of using a risk matrix is
that it identifies those risks that need to be
The researcher first determines the
mitigated and therefore allows for more
interest of consequences severity. In this
cost effective risk control options.
study, the implications consideration are
However, risk matrix also can create
only focus on personnel safety, cargo
pitfalls in identification of likelihood and
damages and operational interruption only
consequences [6].
without consider environmental and legal
impact. Then, researcher set the likelihood
ranges. Likelihood is defined in terms of
probability that the risk might happen
during the life of the operations.

Table 7: Risk Matrix Result [6]

Disastrous
Very
R2
serious
Serious R6

Moderate

Negligible
Very
Low Medium
low

156
 2016 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICTM), 16th - 17th May 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Table 4: The revised results of Analytic Hierarchy Process in terms of likelihood criteria
7th
LlKELI- Priority
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Root of Ranking
HOOD Vector
Product
R1 1 7 3 1/3 3 7 5 2.567 0.252 2
R2 1/7 1 2 1/9 1/4 1/3 1/3 0.366 0.036 7
R3 1/3 1/2 1 1/6 1/3 5 4 0.786 0.077 4
R4 3 9 6 1 2 8 4 3.747 0.368 1
R5 1/3 4 3 1/2 1 5 6 1.795 0.176 3
R6 1/7 3 1/5 1/8 1/5 1 1/2 0.376 0.037 6
R7 1/5 3 1/4 1/4 1/6 2 1 0.535 0.053 5
Sum Row 5.152 27.500 15.450 2.486 6.950 28.333 20.833 10.172 1.000
Priority row 1.300 0.990 1.194 0.916 1.226 1.049 1.095
Lambda
7.770
max
Consistency
0.128
Index (CI)
Consistency
0.097
Ratio (CR)

Table 5: The revised results of Analytic Hierarchy Process in terms of consequences severity criteria.
7th
CONSEQU- Priority
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Root of Ranking
ENCES Vector
Product
R1 1 "V2 7 4 5 8 8 3.324 0.317 2
R2 2 1 5 3 4 7 7 3.455 0.330 1
R3 1/7 1/5 1 1/4 1/7 3 2 0.483 0.046 5
R4 1/4 1/3 4 1 5 4 4 1.598 0.152 3
R5 1/5 % 7 1/5 1 2 4 0.92 1 0.088 4
R6 1/8 1/7 1/3 1/4 1/2 1 2 0.395 0.038 6
R7 1/8 1/7 "V2 1/4 1/4 "V2 1 0.311 0.030 7
Sum Row 3.843 2.569 24.833 8.950 15.893 25.500 28.000 10.486 1.000
Priority row 1.2 18 0.847 1.144 1.364 1.395 0.959 0.829
Lambda
7.757
max
Consistency
0.126
Index (CI)
Consistency
0.096
Ratio (CR)

157
2016 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICTM), 16th - 17th May 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

importance and determines the weight of

Discussion
each risk element based on expert
judgement using linguistic terms. With that
The focus of this study is to assess
the risk appear in dry bulk cargo port in mind, normally information gained is

operation and to develop the risk control affected by imprecision and uncertainty.

options to mitigate or eliminate the risks. To overcome these uncertainty, fuzzy

system have the capacity of developing
This methodology proposes a strong tool
for the decision makers to prepare the functionality of engineering system
and set with linguistic terms in data
preventive action plans for the most critical
risks. analysing, processing or decision making
[7]. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
Nowadays, there are lots of tools FAHP also uses fuzzy ratios for ease of
to estimate risk and helps decision-making expert knowledge elicitation [2].
process. For instance, risk matrix is a very
Conclusion
useful tool to estimate risk while Analytic
The study reviewed that the most
Hierarchy Process is a very useful to solve
convenient technique of assessing the risk
complex decision problem. Even though,
is the AHP which known as a structured
there are several different types of
multi- attributes decision method. This
techniques and theories, including
technique can be use quantitatively and
Decision Analysis models, TOPSIS and
qualitatively and it has the capability to
Evidential Reasoning. AHP is one of the
check and reduce the inconsistency of
appropriate approaches to determining the
experts' judgment which used linguistic
weight of each risk attributes from the
terms especially in assessing risk.
experts judgements using linguistic terms.

It shows that AHP method is a

AHP is a structured multi-attribute
good tools to converting qualitative
decision method. The main advantage of
measures which used use a set of
AHP is its capability to check and reduce
linguistic terms in describing the
the inconsistency of expert judgments.
relationship between risk factors in the
While reducing bias in the decision making
hierarchy into quantitative measures using
process, this method provides group
mathematical calculation through
decision making through consensus using
the geometric mean of the individual References

judgments.
1. Yang Y.C. (2011) 'Risk

management of Taiwan's maritime

Conventional AHP method used
supply chain security', Safety
crisp values in evaluating the relative

158
 2016 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICICTM), 16th - 17th May 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Science, vo1.49, September, p.p Programming, vol. 3(9),

382-393. September, pp. 4 17-426.
2. John, A., Paraskevadikis, D., Bury,
A., Yang, Z. Riahi, R. and Wang, J.
(2014) 'An integrated fuzzy risk
assessment for seaport
operations', Safety Science, vol.
68, April, pp. 180- 194.
3. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a
decision: The analytic hierarchy
process. European Journal of
Operational Research, vol. 48(1),
p.p 9-26.
4. Saaty, T. L. (1994) 'How to make a
decision: The analytic hierarchy
process', Institute of Management
Sciences: Interfaces, vol. 24 (6),
November-December, pp. 19-43.
5. Mabrouki, C., Bentaleb, F. and
Mousrij, A. (2014) 'A decision
support methodology for risk
management within a port
terminal', Safety Science, vol. 63,
March, pp. 124- 132.
6. Ozog (2009) ioMosaic Corporation
Whitepaper: Designing an effective

risk matrix, [Online], Available:

http: //www.iomosiac.com [16 June
2014].
7. Khaleghi, S., Givehchi, S. and
Karimi, S. (2013) 'Fuzzy risk
assessment and categorization
based on Event Tree Analysis
(ETA) and Layer of Protection
Analysis (LOPA): case study in gas
transport system, World Applied

159

View publication stats