Risk Management in Seaports: A Community Analysis at the Port of Hamburg

Nagi, Ayman; Schroeder, Meike; Kersten, Wolfgang

doi:10.3390/su13148035

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This research fulfils this gap and develops a prescriptive process model for CoRiMaS. It complements the research and recommendations conducted and provided by [4,5] with regards to CoRiMaS. The next section outlines the methodology of this research paper.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…However, there are only a few publications that deal with risk management cooperation in seaports (see Table 1). These papers deal with a descriptive analysis based on an ontology as well as community analysis for stakeholders at seaports (see [4,5]). None of the examined publications provided a process model for cooperative risk management in seaports.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They are considered to be junctions of cooperation among countries, including logistics, tourism, transportation, and energy. Moreover, seaports are key logistics hubs for various operations: the seaside, for loading and unloading vessels; the storage area, for storing and handling the different cargos; the landside, for distributing the freight via different modes of transport [4][5][6]. These operations are linked with different stakeholders that interact with one another in various scenarios.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Process Model for Cooperative Risk Management in Seaports

Nagi

Kersten

2022

Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seaports are critical links within supply chains that are often located near residential areas. These seaports can be directly affected by the consequences of operational risk sources and natural disasters such as undeclared dangerous goods and flood, respectively. The diversity and large number of stakeholders at seaports add another level of complexity for risk management that requires a standard approach and clear guidelines. This paper aims to develop a prescriptive process model for cooperative risk management (CoRiMaS) in seaports to enable the stakeholder to manage different sources of risk during risk prevention and response. The prescriptive process model builds on two previous published papers which focused on developing a conceptual framework and a descriptive model based on an ontology for CoRiMaS, respectively. A detailed requirement analysis based on focus groups and a survey study in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) provide important inputs to integrate the required elements into the CoRiMaS prescriptive process model. The model requires an overall input represented by the type of seaport and structure. The prescriptive process model presents all steps and aspects related to stakeholder analysis, risk governance, risk management, and knowledge management. Implications for theory and practice, as well as an agenda for future research, are presented.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Process Model for Cooperative Risk Management in Seaports

Nagi

Kersten

2022

Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…John et al [20] proposed a novel fuzzy chance evaluation approach to facilitate the remedy of uncertainties in seaport operations and to optimize its overall performance effectiveness. Nagi et al [4] detected communities of stakeholders at the port of Hamburg regarding their communication intensity in activities related to risk management. Pileggi et al [21] proposed an ontology (CoRiMaS) that implements a developed reference model for risk management explicitly aimed at seaports with a cooperative approach to risk management.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In seaport terminals, many sources of risk can be triggered by various threats. It is better to classify them into two main risk groups: natural and man-made risk groups [4]. In this manuscript, only man-made risk is considered.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seaport Terminals Risks Prioritization Using a Structural Modeling-Based Approach: A Real Case Study

Dhahri

Elmsalmi

Aljuaid

et al. 2022

JMSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Port risk management (PRM) during port operations is a current problem that can negatively affect the environment, people, and economic issues. In the literature, there is an enormous amount of research related to supply chain risk management (SCRM) in various areas and with various objectives. However, PRM has not received the same degree of attention. In fact, port terminals are crucial links in most supply chain networks and an important pillar of international trade. Therefore, for better risk mitigation efficiency, a risk assessment and prioritization step are vital. Recently in the literature, researchers have applied prospective methods such as structural analysis methods to risk prioritization in SCRM. The aim of this research is to prioritize various man-made risk variables in PRM using a qualitative structural modeling-based approach, specifically, the MICMAC method (referring to its French acronym: Matrice d’Impacts Croisés Multiplication Appliquée à un Classement). An empirical study was conducted to assesses and prioritize risk variables of the seaport terminals of Sfax (Tunisia). The main contributions of the empirical research are twofold. First, to prioritize the key risk variables to define the most critical ones that require immediate intervention. Second, to analyze the structure of the influences between all identified risk variables. The results for the port terminals of Sfax show that the highest-priority risk variables are the manual handling (Ph3), disregard for safety aspects (Ph4), unsafe storage of goods (Inc1), absence of a prevention system and a rescue organization (Inc2), neglect of the regulatory aspects of handling equipment (M1), ignorance of good handling practices during the operation of loading and unloading (Cho2), and inadequate lifting accessories (Cho3). These risk variables must be the subject of urgent risk reduction strategies.

show abstract