進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-1001202000580000
論文名稱(中文) 船舶進出港航行風險類別及失效樹關鍵因素研究:相關當事人溝通風險認知差異分析
論文名稱(英文) Ports’ Service Attributes Weights for Channel Operations Communication Risks
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 交通管理科學系碩士在職專班
系所名稱(英) Department of Transportation & Communication Management Science(on the job class)
學年度 108
學期 1
出版年 109
研究生(中文) 戴瑋儒
研究生(英文) Wei-Ru Tai
學號 R57061175
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 155頁
口試委員 指導教授-黃國平
口試委員-沈宗緯
口試委員-許永恩
中文關鍵字 風險因素  溝通風險  紮根理論  分析網路程序法 
英文關鍵字 Risk factor  Communication risks  Grounded theory  Analytic Network Process 
學科別分類
中文摘要 近年來,國內外船舶碰撞與觸碰海上意外事件頻傳,尤其進出港過程中及港內之事故也相較以往更趨增加。然而,溝通風險亦是影響航行安全一重要因素。本研究針對船舶交通服務人員、引水人及拖船駕駛等相關當事人進行深入訪談,並從紮根理論分析後,從相關當事人所注重溝通風險部份歸納出影響溝通風險之因素,接著運用分析網路程序法針對溝通風險作探究,以期能總結在進出港時之溝通風險。
根據ANP的分析結果,整體專家均認為「人為因素風險」最為影響溝通風險。在主準則部份,船舶交通服務人員最重視「溝通失誤因素風險」,引水人與拖船駕駛相對重視「環境因素風險」。在次準則部份,整體專家認為擁有「專業知識與熟悉度」對於溝通過程更有效率且精確地傳達資訊。此外,整體專家均重視「傳達與接收訊息內容不完整」與「未覆誦並確認訊息」等風險因素。若未接收到完整訊息且未進一步確認,可能導致執行錯誤指令或接收到不正確之資訊,進而致使進出港碰撞或觸碰危機發生。
透過比較與分析,藉此能夠互相瞭解彼此所著重的風險因素,並進而改善修正,避免溝通問題而造成海事意外發生。
英文摘要 In recent years, there have been frequent incidents of collision and physical contact between ships, especially in the process of entering and departing ports. An important factor affecting navigation safety is the quality of communication between ships and between ships and ports. Looking back at past cases and the literature, it is known that miscommunication between vessels, and between vessels and vessel traffic service operators or between vessels and tugboats often increases the risk of collision or contact. After analyzing by the grounded theory, it showed that all three parties are concerned about communication risks. Then use the analytic network process method to evaluate the communication risks, in order to summarize the risks in communication. This study explores communication risks the kinds of communication risks which are of concern to those who are engaged in the management of maritime traffic in the port of Kaohsiung in Taiwan by using the analytic network process.
According to the analysis of ANP, the overall experts believe that "human factors risk" most affects communication risks. In the criterions, the vessel traffic service operators attach the utmost importance to the "communication failure factors risk". The pilots and the tugboat masters pay more attention to the "environmental factors risk". In the sub-criteria, according to the overall experts, it is considered that having "Professional knowledge and familiarity" conveys information more efficiently and accurately during the communication process. In addition, the overall experts evaluate risk factors such as " Incomplete messages " and “Not repeating or confirming” may result in executing of an incorrect instruction or receiving of incorrect information. And then, it will cause the accidents of collision or contact during vessels entering/departing.
Through comparison and analysis, we can know each other's risk factors that are considered and improve them to avoid communication problems which will cause accidents.
論文目次 目錄 VII
表目錄 IX
圖目錄 XII
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 4
1.3 研究方法與範圍 5
1.4 研究架構與流程 5
第二章 文獻回顧 8
2.1 船舶進出港航行安全 8
2.2 船舶進出港風險管理系統 17
2.3 影響進出港風險因素 26
2.4 運用分析網路程序法(ANP)之海事研究 33
2.5 碰撞與觸碰案例回顧 34
2.6 小結 39
第三章 研究方法 40
3.1 風險評估法 40
3.1.1 關鍵事件分析 40
3.1.2 失效樹分析 44
3.1.3 關鍵事件與失效樹風險因子分析 51
3.2 紮根理論法 53
3.2.1 研究樣本 54
3.2.2 資料蒐集 54
3.2.3 資料分析 55
3.3 分析網路程序法 57
3.3.1 理論與架構 57
3.3.2 決策流程 59
第四章 紮根理論分析 64
4.1 開放編碼分析 65
4.2 主軸編碼分析 72
4.3 選擇編碼分析及歸納風險類別 79
4.4 VTS、引水人、拖船駕駛編碼差異分析 80
4.5 溝通影響船舶進出港風險管理分析 85
4.6 文獻與紮根理論分析結果之比較 89
4.7 小結 90
第五章 分析網路程序法分析與結果 92
5.1 準則歸納及研究對象界定 92
5.2 問卷發放及資料分析 94
5.3 分析網路程序法之計算與分析 98
5.4 分析網路程序法之結果 104
5.5 文獻與本研究分析結果之比較 124
5.6 小結 128
第六章 結論與建議 129
6.1 結論 129
6.2 建議 132
參考文獻-中文 134
參考文獻-英文 136
參考文獻-網路 140
附錄一 半結構式專家問卷 141
附錄二 ANP專家問卷 144
參考文獻 1. 王彙喬(2012)。臺灣西部國際商港航行安全評估。國立臺灣海洋大學航運管理學系博士論文,基隆市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/rsac7g
2. 白儀婷(2015)。船舶進出港航行安全重要程度與滿意度分析-以臺中港為例。國立臺灣海洋大學商船學系碩士論文,基隆市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/5x63gr
3. 吳志文(2002)。以類神經網路探討船舶事故之研究。國立成功大學交通管理學系碩士論文,台南市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/wmq3eg
4. 李仁甫(2011)。台灣地區港口及鄰近水域航行安全之研究。國立高雄海洋科技大學海事資訊科技研究所碩士論文,高雄市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/7bzn58
5. 林昭宏(2010)。航港機關審核衡量船舶進港風險因素評估之研究。國立臺灣海洋大學商船學系所碩士論文,基隆市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/8kkhnm
6. 施伯杰(2008)。以故障樹與事件樹分析法探討平交道事故風險。國立成功大學交通管理科學系研究所碩士論文,台南市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/33q4eh
7. 孫暐炫(2008)。風險管理應用在船舶航行作業安全之研究-以高雄港為例。國立高雄海洋科技大學航運管理研究所碩士論文,高雄市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/s8yyp4
8. 徐宗國(1996)。紮根理論研究法:淵源、原則、技術與涵義,台北市:巨流。
9. 徐國裕、張運杰、周和平(2008),台灣西部國際商港水域海難事故之分析,航運季刊,第十七卷,第一期,頁45-62。
10. 涂劭琥(2010)。臺灣主要港口航行安全之研究。國立臺灣海洋大學運輸與航海科學系碩士論文,基隆市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/x2j7nb
11. 莊士賢、吳行悌(2011),國際海事組織[正規安全評估]與[目標導向標準] 之回顧及我國採行之建議,台灣海事安全與保安研究學刊,第二卷,第六期,頁1-19。
12. 陳彥宏(2013),從海事安全的角度看船舶碰撞風險與預防,台灣海事安全與保安研究學刊,第四卷,第五期,頁1-27。
13. 郭昰泓(2017)。跑道入侵溝通風險因子關聯研究。國立成功大學交通管理科學系碩士論文,台南市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/jbwn76
14. 黃清賢(2000),危害分析與風險評估,台北市,三民書局。
15. 黃燦煌、廖坤靜、吳展嘉(2006),海難事故碰撞事件中外在人為因素分析之研究,海運與船舶通訊,第27期,頁18-28。
16. 褚志鵬(2009)。層級分析法(AHP)理論與實作。國立東華大學企業管理系教學講義。取自http://faculty.ndhu.edu.tw/~chpchu/POMR_Taipei_2009/AHP2009.pdf
17. 蔡正偉(2016)。應用分析網路程序法於建構綠色港口要素之研究-以高雄港為例。中原大學工業與系統工程研究所碩士論文,桃園市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/kbk8n9
18. 劉中平(2005)。台灣國際商港水域航行安全性及海事事故分級制度之研究。國立臺灣海洋大學航運管理學系博士論文,基隆市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/42pw8z
19. 劉中平、梁金樹、蘇育玲、朱經武(2005),台灣管轄水域之航行安全性分析,航運季刊,第十四卷,第三期,頁1-18。
20. 劉正恩(2008)。船舶進出港口人為碰撞過失及乳酪模式之研究─以高雄港為例。國立高雄海洋科技大學航運管理研究所碩士論文,高雄市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/k8ktn5
21. 鄧振源、曾國雄(1989),層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(上),中國統計學報,第二十七卷,第六期,頁1-20。
22. 盧能宗(2007)。港口航行安全之服務品質研究-以高雄港為例。國立高雄海洋科技大學航運管理研究所碩士論文,高雄市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/978g29
23. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (2015). Safety and Shipping Review 2015.
24. Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2013). Marine safety investigations & reports. Capsize of the Australian registered tug Adonis at Gladstone. Investigation number: 286-MO-2011-005.
25. Balmat, J.F., Lafont, F., Maifret, R., & Pessel, N. (2009). MAritime RISk Assessment (MARISA), a fuzzy approach to define an individual ship risk factor. Ocean Engineering, 36(15), 1278-1286.
26. Bocanegra-Valle, Ana. (2011). The Language of Seafaring: Standardized Conventions and Discursive Features in Speech Communications. European Journal of English Studies, 11, 35-53.
27. Bodin, L. and S. I. Gass (2003). On teaching the analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Operations Research, 30(10), 1487-1497.
28. Chauvin, C., Lardjane, S., Morel, G., Clostermann, J. P., & Langard, B. (2013). Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 59, 26-37.
29. Chou, C. C. (2018). Application of ANP to the selection of shipping registry: The case of Taiwanese maritime industry, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 67, 89-97.
30. Darbra, R. M., & Casal, J. (2004). Historical analysis of accidents in seaports. Safety Science, 42(2), 85-98.
31. Darbra, R. M., Crawford, J. F. E., Haley, C. W., & Morrison, R. J. (2007). Safety culture and hazard risk perception of Australian and New Zealand maritime pilots. Marine Policy, 31(6), 736-745.
32. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological bulletin, 51(4), 327.
33. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1999). Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206
34. Gruenefeld U., Stratmann T.C., Brueck Y., Hahn A., Boll S., Heuten W. (2018). Investigations on Container Ship Berthing from the Pilot’s Perspective: Accident Analysis, Ethnographic Study, and Online Survey. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 12(3), 493-498, doi:10.12716/1001.12.03.07.
35. Hensen, H. (2003). Tug use in port: a practical guide: Nautical Institute.
36. Hetherington, C., Flin, R. & Mearns, K. (2006). Safety in shipping: The human element. Journal of Safety Research, 37(4), 401-411.
37. Hollnagel, E. (2008). Risk+ barriers= safety? Safety Science, 46(2), 221-229.
38. Hsu, W. K. K. (2012). Ports’ service attributes for ship navigation safety. Safety Science, 50(2), 244-252.
39. International Association of Light House Authorities (2016). IALA Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) Manual.
40. International Association of Light House Authorities (2018). NAVGUIDE 2018 Marine Aids To Navigation Manual.
41. İlker Gölcük & Adil Baykasoğlu (2016). An analysis of DEMATEL approaches for criteria interaction handling within ANP. Expert Systems with Applications, 46, 346-366.
42. Jafari, H., Saeidi, N., Kaabi, A., Noshadi, E., & Hallafi, H. R. (2014). AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF FACTORS AFFECTING REDUCTION OF PERFORMANCE IN CONTAINER HANDLING OPERATION. Kuwait Chapter of the Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 3(11), 254-263.
43. John, P., Brooks, B. & Schriever, U. (2017). Profiling maritime communication by non-native speakers: A quantitative comparison between the baseline and standard marine communication phraseology. English for Specific Purposes, 47, 1-14.
44. John, P., Brooks, B. & Schriever, U. (2019). Speech acts in professional maritime discourse: A pragmatic risk analysis of bridge team communication directives and commissives in full-mission simulation. Journal of Pragmatics 140, 12-21.
45. Kim, E. K., Jeong, J. S., Park, G.K., & Im, N. K. (2012). Characteristics of ship movements in a fairway. International Journal of Fuzzy and Logic Intelligent Systems, 12(4), 285-289.
46. Kristiansen, S. (2013). Maritime transportation: safety management and risk analysis: Routledge.
47. Kujala, P., Hänninen, M., Arola, T., & Ylitalo, J. (2009). Analysis of the marine traffic safety in the Gulf of Finland. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 94(8), 1349-1357.
48. Lee, C.K., Moon, S.B., & Jeong, T.G. (2016). The investigation of ship maneuvering with hydrodynamic effects between ships in curved narrow channel. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 8(1), 102-109.
49. Liwång, H., Ringsberg, J. W., & Norsell, M. (2013). Quantitative risk analysis – Ship security analysis for effective risk control options. Safety Science, 58, 98-112.
50. Mansson, J. T., Lutzhoft, M., & Brooks, B. (2017). Joint activity in the maritime traffic system: Perceptions of ship masters, maritime pilots, tug masters, and vessel traffic service operators. The Journal of Navigation, 70(3), 547-560.
51. Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand (2004). Guidelines for Port & Harbour Risk Assessment and Safety Management Systems in New Zealand.
52. Mokhtari, K., Ren, J., Roberts, C., & Wang, J. (2011). Application of a generic bow-tie based risk analysis framework on risk management of sea ports and offshore terminals. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 192(2), 465-475.
53. Mou, J. M., Tak, C.& Ligteringen, H. (2010). Study on collision avoidance in busy waterways by using AIS data. Ocean Engineering, 37(5-6), 483-490.
54. MSC.255(84) Adoption of the code of the international standards and recommended practices for a safety investigation into a marine casualty or marine incident (Casualty Investigation Code), IMO.
55. MSC Circ.433 Reports on Investigations into Serious Casualties, IMO.
56. National Transportation Safety Board (2016). Safety Study: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of the US Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service System, NTSB Number: SS1601.
57. Pak, J.Y., Yeo, G.T., Oh, S.W., & Yang, Z. (2015). Port safety evaluation from a captain’s perspective: The Korean experience. Safety Science, 72, 172-181.
58. Pallis, P. L. (2017). Port Risk Management in Container Terminals. Transportation Research Procedia, 25, 4411-4421.
59. Pandit, N. R. (1996). The creation of theory: A recent application of the grounded theory method. The qualitative report, 2(4), 1-15.
60. Pourzanjani, M. (2001). Analysis of human error in co-ordinating ship's collision avoidance action. Proceedings of ICCGS 2001: 2nd international conference on collision and grounding of ships, pp. 85-91.
61. Praetorius, G. (2009). The subject, not just an object: Maritime Safety in the Vessel Traffic Service Domain.
62. Ronan, W. W., & Latham, G. P. (1974). The reliability and validity of the critical incident technique: A closer look. Studies in Personnel Psychology, 6(1), 53-64.
63. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytical Hierarchy Process, Planning, Priority. Resource Allocation. RWS Publications, USA.
64. Saaty, T.L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. 1. Ed. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
65. Saaty, T. L. (2004). Fundamentals of the analytic network process — Dependence and feedback in decision-making with a single network. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 13(2), 129-157. doi:10.1007/s11518-006-0158-y.
66. Sætrevik, B., Ghanonisaber, S., & Lunde, G. E. (2018). Power imbalance between supply vessels and offshore installations may impede the communication of safety issues. Safety Science, 101, 268-281.
67. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Sage publications.
68. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice: Sage.
69. Trbojevic, V. M., & Carr, B. J. (2000). Risk based methodology for safety improvements in ports. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 71(1), 467-480.
70. Ulusçu, O. S., Ozbaş, B., Altıok, T., & Or, I. (2009). Risk Analysis of the Vessel Traffic in the Strait of Istanbul. Risk Analysis, 29(10), 1454-1472.
71. Yip, T. L. (2008). Port traffic risks – A study of accidents in Hong Kong waters. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 44(5), 921-931, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2006.09.002.
72. Yu, M., Hsiao, B., Hsu, S., & Li, S. Y. (2012). Measuring harbor management, stevedoring and warehousing performance of Taiwanese container ports using the multi-activity network DEA model. Journal of International Logistics and Trade, 10(2), 77-84,86-98,101-115.
73. Zhang, J., Teixeira, Â. P., Guedes Soares, C., & Yan, X. (2018). Quantitative assessment of collision risk influence factors in the Tianjin port. Safety Science, 110, 363-371.
74. Ziarati, R., Ziarati, M. & Çalbaş, B. (2009). Improving safety at sea and ports by developing standards for maritime English. Bridge conference, Finland.
75. Transportation Safety Board of Canada, Retrieved September 21, 2018, from:http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/stats/marine/index.asp
76. International Association of Light House Authorities. Retrieved August 17, 2018, from:https://www.iala-aism.org/
77. European Marine Casualty Information Platform. Retrieved August 30, 2018, from:https://emcipportal.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php?id=44
78. British Tugowners Association. Girting leads to constructive total loss; And, Tug collides with another vessel. Retrieved August 8, 2018, from:https://britishtug.com/
79. International Harbour Masters' Association. Retrieved September 26, 2018, from:http://www.harbourmaster.org/harbour-master/safety
80. Monument largest air disaster in history: Last urgent call; calling survivors and surviving relatives of the passengers and crew of pan am flight 1736. (2007). PR Newswire Retrieved October 22, 2019, from https://search-proquest-com.autorpa.lib.nkust.edu.tw/docview/447577371?accountid=7991
81. Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2012). Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process (Vol. 175): Springer Science & Business. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from https://link-springer-com.er.lib.ncku.edu.tw/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-3597-6.pdf
82. United States Coast Guard (2010). Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment - Workshop Report-Savannah, Georgia. Retrieved September 25, 2018, from:https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/pawsa/WorkshopReports/Savannah%20Georgia%20-%20PAWSA%20Workshop%20Report.pdf
83. 交通部統計查詢網,高雄港進出港艘次及商船海事原因分佈圖,民107年6月12日,取自:http://stat.motc.gov.tw/mocdb/stmain.jsp?sys=100
84. 海軍大氣海洋局,航行指南,民108年6月24日,取自:https://www.mnd.gov.tw/NewUpload/userfiles/File/%E5%A4%A7%E6%B0%A3%E6%B5%B7%E6%B4%8B%E5%B1%80/%E4%B9%9D%E4%B9%9D%E8%87%BA%E7%81%A3%E8%88%AA%E8%A1%8C%E6%8C%87%E5%8D%97_%E6%B0%91-%E5%AE%8C%E6%95%B4%E7%89%88(1030512).pdf
85. 國家教育研究院,紮根理論研究法,民107年9月30日,取自:https://www.naer.edu.tw/bin/home.php
86. 台中港務分公司,臺中港進出港指南,民108年6月24日,取自:https://tc.twport.com.tw/Upload/D/FileDownload/17930/636222296527330102.pdf
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2029-10-17起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw