Posted: October 20th, 2022

Analysis of Vessel-Based Marine Accidents and the
Economic Risks to Nigeria

Abstract: The aim of the study is to evaluate the economic loss of vessel-based marine accidents to Nigeria and the impact
on marine transport sub-sector output and/or performance. Time series data of 30 years were gathered from the Central Bank of
Nigeria (CBN) statistical bulletin, the Nigeria insurance digest, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
annual statistical report. The contribution of marine transport to the Gross Domestic Product (Y), shipping accident economic
loss (X1), economic losses of offshore oil and gas (O&G) drilling accidents (X2), and marine oil spill accidents economic
losses (X3) were obtained and used as the explanatory(independent) variables. The data was analyzed using multiple regression
method with Y as the dependent variable. The hypotheses were tested using t-test. The findings of the study indicates that
shipping accidents economic losses and economic losses of offshore oil and gas drilling accidents shows significant impact on
the output of the marine transport sub-sector over the period covered by the study. The model expressing the quantitative
relationship between GDPmarine transport (Y), shipping accidents economic loss (X1), economic loss of offshore oil and gas drilling
accidents (X2) and marine oil spill accidents loss (X3) is: Y = 332156363.1 + 0.167X1 + 0.837X2 + 0.203X3 + e. it was
recommended that investment in safety policies and standards be improved with greater focus in reducing accidents induced
economic losses in shipping and offshore O&G drilling maritime operations.
Keywords: Vessel-Based, Marine, Accidents, Economic – Risks
1. Introduction
The concept of marine accident is the occurrence of an
event in a ship or involving any equipment, investment and
properties exposed to the marine environment, that resulting
to injuries to persons at sea or in port, and damage to the
marine property or investment [1]. It encompasses accident
in the sea or at port, quayside or anchorage, dockyards or
shipyards etc. Marine accidents are caused by exposure to
risks, perils and hazards of the marine environment, provided
that the accidental objects are at sea or being harnessed for
sea movement, in port or in a dockyards and can be protected
by a policy of marine insurance. It is immaterial whether the
vessel or object involved in accident is sailing or stationary at
the point and time of accident [2]. Nigeria being a maritime
nation is one of the One Hundred and Sixty Nine (169), and
three (3) associate member countries of the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) which is an agency of the
united Nations [UN], with the mission of regulating safety
operations and instrumentation in the global maritime
industry [3]. With inland water ways of about ten thousand
kilometers (10,000km) and extensive coast line of about
eight hundred and fifty-two kilometers (852km) and
territorial sea based on the United Nations Convention on the
law of the sea 1982, extending twelve nautical miles or
twenty-two kilometers into the open seas, from the shorelines
73 Nwokedi Theophilus Chinonyerem et al.: Moses Ntor-Ue. Analysis of Vessel-Based Marine
Accidents and the Economic Risks to Nigeria
of the country, falling fully within the country’s exclusive
economic zone [3], [4].
Reference [5] reports that seaborne container traffic
(container throughput) to Nigerian ports in 2013 stood at
two million, Seven hundred and twenty thousand, four
hundred and twenty two TEUS (2,720, 422 TEU’S),
representing an average of nine hundred and nine thousand
four hundred and seventy four TEU’S (909,474 TEU’S) per
annum between the 2011 to 2013 period. National statistics
indicates that the total value of export shipping trade
(Export trade by sea) and imports shipping trade (sea borne
import trade) in the year 2013 were fourteen trillion, seven
hundred and thirty five billion, nine hundred and seventy
seven million, seven hundred and sixty thousand naira
(14,735,977,760,000.00) and nine trillion, eighty four
billion, four hundred and fifty four million, seven hundred
and thirty thousand naira (9,084,454,730,000.00)
respectively, while the cargo throughput of the Nigerian
ports excluding crude oil terminals in the same year was
76,886,997 million metric tons [6-8]. Further reports from
the Nigerian ports authority (NPA) reveals that in the year
2013, 5232 ships transited to the ports of Nigeria while an
average of 2,200 offshore service boats serviced the
logistics needs of the oil and gas (O&G) industry in the
coastal trade [6]. Within the Nigeria coastal regions and
internal waters, runs extensive oil pipeline networks of over
7000km extending to the shores and numerous oil
exploration and exploitation platforms.
The above statistics represent the economic strengths of
the economy of the Nigeria’s marine transport industry/subsector and points towards the potentials of the sub-sector to
contribute meaningfully to the Gross Domestic Product,
economic growth and development. Statistics from the
Central Bank of Nigeria (2013) reveals that the average
contribution of maritime transport sub-sector (GDPmarine
transport) to the Gross Domestic Product of the Nigeria
economy in 2013 alone was six billion, two hundred and
twenty million, four hundred and seventy thousand naira
(#6,220,470,000.00). The economic contribution of the
marine economy of Nigeria can be maximized given the
capacities of the contributing variables as earlier statistics
reveal. it is viewed that the contribution of this sub-sector of
the economy has continually remained limited and below
expected benchmarks and targets each year following high
trend of marine perils and hazards (causal factors of accident)
to which the investments are exposed, this equally has
economic and financial costs and implications which
consequently hinder the maximization of the contribution of
the maritime transport sub-sector to the national output
(GDP) of Nigeria [9].
Reference [10] explains hazards and perils of the sea as
unforeseen occurrences making vessels, underwater
installation, seaborne cargo, oil and gas drilling rigs and
platforms, and on board-personnel vulnerable to risks of
marine accident with the attendant economic loss. Reference
[11] asserts that the prevalence of hazards and perils of the
sea, exposes maritime prosperities and investment in ships to
risk of accident and loss of various nature, this necessitates
the application of formal safety assessment (FSA) and other
forms of risk assessment methods as well as proper
implementation of other International maritime Organization
(IMO) convention instruments to limit the occurrence of
maritime accidents and consequent economic losses
occasioned by it.
Reference [2] further defines a marine accident as one or
more unexpected and undesired marine incident, which
result in death or personal injury to crew, damage or loss of
marine properties and seaborne cargo and harmful to the
marine environment. Safety has always been considered as
a critical feature in almost all marine operations, safety
must have equal consideration with environmental and
economic impact [12]. Since marine accident is likely to
have serious commercial and financial consequences. It is
therefore important to keep all risks in good control through
proactive safety management. This requires the
measurement of the economic cost of ship-based accidents
to properly manage it. The Nigeria Maritime Administration
and Safety Agency (NIMASA) Act made provisions for
institution of an accident investigation committee, to cause
an inquiry into the reported accident cases in the maritime
domain of Nigeria and Nigeria flagged vessels. The Act
however did not note the importance of extending
investigations to finding the impact of marine accidents on
the economy as it seems to center more on investigating to
limit environmental impact of pollution, accident frequency,
fatality (death) rates and injury to onboard personnel and
passengers. The implementation of the section of the
NIMASA Act dealing with investigation of accident by an
appointed committee is equally believed to have been
politicized over the years due to appointment of politicians
into the committee rather than professionals. As a result
while many coastal nations in boast of serious strives and
certainty achieved in limiting marine accidents and the
economic impacts, through diligent implementation of
safety and loss control measures, as evidenced in the data
bases they maintain for marine accident. The same cannot
be said of marine accident investigation, measurement and
control in Nigeria, as it remains a game of probability even
as there appear to be no reliable public sector ship-based
accident database for Nigeria.
In the opinion of reference [13], “You can’t manage or
control it, if you can’t measure it”. To measure and/or
estimate the impact of vessel-based marine accidents losses
on the economy with precision, marine accident investigation
is an important first step. It becomes an equally impossible
task to ascertain the extent of losses caused by marine
accidents when there is no professional marine accident
investigation board, or where the marine safety authority
lacks a developed effective and professional accident
investigation department.
In the views of reference [14], accidents impose various
categories of economic costs which include: property damage
cost (damage accident), injury and death cost (injury and
death accident), cost imposed on economy as a result of
Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science 2017; 6(6): 72-84 74
accident induced pollution (spill/ pollution accident), cost of
police services, court and insurance services, cost of safety
measures implementation among others. The opinion of [14]
receives support from the opinions of references [15], [16],
whose studies centered on valuation of damage accidents in
the marine industry. Reference [16] identifies the economic
losses of marine damage accidents to include: shipping
accident losses, offshore oil and gas (O&G) drilling accidents
losses, and marine oil spill accidents losses. This study will
center on the economic losses of the various kinds of vesselbased marine damage accidents and the effects on the output
of the marine transport sub-sector of Nigeria from 1984 to
2013 covering a 30 years period. The contributions of
maritime transport to economic growth and development of
Nigeria will neither be sustained nor maximized, until the
economic losses of marine accidents in Nigeria is measured
with precision and controlled by use of effective safety
management instruments.
1.1. Objectives
The main objective of the study is to ascertain the impact
of marine accident economic loss on the output of Nigerian
marine transport sub-sector of the economy from 1984 to
2013. Other specific objective are:
(i) To assess the impact of shipping accidents economic
loss on the Nigerian marine transport gross domestic
product (GDPmarine transport).
(ii) To examine the effect of the economic loss of offshore
oil and gas (O&G) drilling accidents on the output of
the marine transport subsector of Nigeria.
(iii)To evaluate the impact of marine oil spill accidents on
the GDPmarine transport
(iv) To compare shipping accidents economic loss and
insurance expenditure on shipping accidents loss
control and management.
1.2. Hypotheses
HOa: There is no significant impact of shipping accidents
economic losses on GDPmarine transport over the period covered
in the study.
Hob: Economic losses of offshore O&G accidents has no
significant impact on GDPmarine transport
Hoc: marine oil spill accidents losses does not show
significant impact on the GDPmarie transport
Hod: There is no significant difference between shipping
accidents economic loss and insurance expenditure for the
control and management of shipping accidents losses.
2. Brief of Related Literature
2.1. Conceptual Framework
Reference [17] explains an accident as unexpected,
unplanned and unintentional series of events leading to the
physical injury of a person at work and/or damage to
properties, equipments and the environment. In a study on
theories of occupational accident, reference [17] opines that
accidents occur when workers, properties and equipment are
exposed to a danger factor (hazard), such that the worker is
injured and the property is damaged with diminished value.
Presenting a study guide on accident investigation and
control, reference [18] defines the concept of accident as the
final event in an unplanned process that results in injury,
illness, property damage and possible environmental damage.
It is the final effect of multiple causes and an event, that
result in a damage of state of persons and properties involved
[18]. From the foregoing, it is observable that the occurence
of accident diminishes the economic value and structure of
properties and health states of persons involved. Reference
[18] distinguishes between accident and incidents, while
accidents are observed to cause injuries and damages,
incidents do not cause injuries and damages. Accidents also
result from many factors, simultaneously interconnected,
cross-linked events that have interacted in some dynamic
way. It identifies that accidents also result from hazardous
conditions and unsafe behaviours which represent risks that
have been ignored and tolerated within the safety
management system. In the guide for hazard analysis and
control in a work environment, it notes that hazards are
dangers, unsafe workplace conditions and practices which
threaten physical harms to employees and to property and
environment. It posits that these hazards (dangers) represent
risks of damages and injuries that could occur with accidents,
once there is exposure to it [18].
In the views of reference [19], an accident is an occurrence
that involves a sequence of events that must encompass
unintentional injury or damage. Reference [19] posits that
accident phenomenon is distinguished from other phenomena
such as murder, sabotage, suicide, war, and other willful
injurious event by the singular characteristics of unplanned,
unexpected or unintentional injury and/or damage. Figure 1
below is a key illustration of the accident phenomenon as
illustrated by reference [19] in observing the event in the
beginning and end of accident.
Source: Reference [19].
Figure 1. Accident is assumed that involve the occurrence of a set of successive events that produce unintentional harm.
75 Nwokedi Theophilus Chinonyerem et al.: Moses Ntor-Ue. Analysis of Vessel-Based Marine
Accidents and the Economic Risks to Nigeria
Source: reference [19].
Figure 2. Accident causing events and activities in terms of their chronological relationship.
Reference [17] supporting the earlier position of [18] notes
that the risk of traffic accident is influenced by the level of
exposure to occupational/traffic related hazards. This agrees
with the position of reference [18], that exposure to risks
(hazards) causes accident. Risk is the probability than an
accident (event) will occur and adversely affect the
achievement of objectives [19]. Reference [20] in reference
[21], considers risk as the chance of injury, damage or loss.
Risk is further explained as an event where something that is
of value to humans (including humans themselves) is at stake
and where the outcome is uncertain [21-22].References [23-
24] definie risk as the effects of uncertainty on objectives
notes that risk is the possibility that an event will occur and
adversely affect the achievement of objectives.
A diligent observation of the above definitions of risk
show a synonymous relationship between accident and risk
with the definition of both having common elements of
unexpected loss, injury, damage, adverse outcome,
uncertainty, probability, severity of consequences, etc. The
concept of accident and risk therefore denotes the likelihood
that employees, properties and investment exposed to hazards
and unsafe condition may experience an event/action, whose
casual factor may be multiple, single or in-chain, that will
change its state by resulting to injury, damage and/or loss.
The advent of motorized transport, offshore technology,
and advancement in industrial technology has led to
development of sea going vessels of various kinds, oil and
gas exploration rigs, floating production storage and
offloading systems (FPSO’s) and water crafts of various
kinds. Advancement in offshore technology and ocean
engineering also offers opportunity for development of
underwater exploration and exploitation vehicles, pipeline
technology system, cargo handling equipments of various
kinds and capacity, onshore/port technology systems, all
produced through the mastering and use of marine/ocean
engineering and offshore technology and put into the sea for
purposes of surface sea transportation, (shipping), underwater
exploitation, surveillance and hydrographic studies, or
stationed permanently at sea or near to enhance the purposes
of harnessing the marine resources to the socio-economic
benefit of the state. The concept of marine/maritime accident
is the occurrence of an event/risks, in a ship or involving
equipment, investment and properties exposed to the marine
environment, that resulting to injuries to person at sea or in
port, and damage to the marine property or investment [1]. It
encompasses accident in the sea or at port, quayside or
anchorage, dockyards or shipyards etc. Maritime accidents
are caused by exposure to risks, perils and hazards of the
marine environment, provided that the accidental objects are
at sea or being harnessed for sea movement, in port or in a
dockyards and can be protected by a policy of marine
insurance. It is immaterial whether the vessel or object
involved in accident is sailing or stationary at the point and
time of accident [2]. The marine accident casualty
investigation boards further defines a marine accident as one
or more unexpected and undesired marine incident, which
result in death or personal injury to crew, damage or loss of
marine properties and seaborne cargo and harmful to the
marine environment [2]. The study adopted the definition
given by reference [2] as our definition of marine accident.
The concept of maritime accident according the marine
accident and casualty investigation boards is one or more
unexpected and undesired marine incident, which result in
death or personal injury to crew, damage or loss of marine
properties or seaborne cargo, and harmful to the marine
environment. Marine incident on the other hand was defined
as undesired abnormal events occurring in the course of a
marine adventure and likely to cause danger to man, ship’s
architecture work or environment [2]. References [2] and
[25] opines that marine accident may not be limited to
accident involving sea-going vessels and inland water boats
but includes onshore mishaps such as crane cargo/handling
accident in ports, accident involving oil exploitation
platforms and mobile drilling units, accident in dockyards,
collision leading to actual or pressurized loss of ship, her
abandonment, material damage to her or disablement. While
vessel accident is an unintended happening, its severity may
vary from no vessel damage to loss of entire cargo, and crew
injury to death [26]. However, the code for marine accident
and casualty investigations distinguishes between “very
serious” and “serious” casualties. Very serious means a
casualty to a ship which involves the total loss of ship and its
cargo, loss of life or severe environmental pollution or
damage. Serious casualty means a casualty which does not
quality as a very serious casualty and which involves fire
explosion, grounding, contact, heavy weather damage, ice
damage, hull cracking or suspected hull defect resulting in
structural damage rendering the ship unseaworthy such as
Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science 2017; 6(6): 72-84 76
penetration of the hull underwater, immobilization of main
engines, extensive accommodation damage, pollution and /or
breakdown necessitating towage or shore Helpance [2], [27],
[16]. Reference [28] opines that the main legal basis that
formed the international background for maritime accident
investigation lies in the United Nation convention on the law
of the sea (UNCLOS), which states in article 9A that it is the
responsibility of the flag state to institute an inquiry
(investigation) into accidents on the high sea. Accidents
occurring elsewhere, such as in coastal and inland waters are
not covered by the UNCLOS, though the right of the coastal
state to extend investigation to accident on such waters is not
in contention and has been viewed as important in
determining economic cost of marine accidents and their
control measures [28].
Reference [29] in a study on analysis of maritime
transportation risk factors grouped maritime accident into the
following groupings:
a. Foundering
b. Missing
c. Fire explosion
d. Grounding
e. Collision / contact
f. War loss / hostilities
g. Mechanical fault / problem
h. Hull problem
i. Navigational problem
j. Other problems not specified above.
The study further observed that accident in the marine
industry are further identified by the data-bases of maritime
casualty maintained and published by organizations that
conduct accident investigation and analysis and regular
statistical data updates, such organization include Lloyds
maritime information services (LMIS), UK department of
transport maritime accident investigation branch (MAIB),
Institute of London underwriters (ILU), classification
societies such as Det Norske Veritas (DNV), American
Bureau of shipping (ABS), United States Coast Guard
(USCG), The International Association of classification
societies (IACS), and the Maritime Accident Investigation
Board (MAIB) of various maritime states [29].
2.2. Theoretical Framework
Theoretically, the economic loss and impact of marine
accident on the economy can be estimated based on the
theories of accident causation, accident investigation and
accident/risk management and loss control. These include the
domino theory, the theory and principles of marine insurance,
human capital theory (Gross Output Model) and the
economic theory of natural resource damage assessment
based on total revenue, price and quantity, (output)
relationship, among others [11], [30], [14] and [16].
2.2.1. Accident / Loss Causation Theories
There exist many theories which seek to explain the causal
factors of accident and the accident loss. The reason for many
of the theories is to lay sound foundation for the
understanding of the key accident causal factors, to enable
application of control and management measures, to
eliminate or reduce accident occurrence [31]. Reference [13]
opines that accident theories support the valid opinions that
accident are not always Acts of God and misfortunes to be
suffered by people not at peace with gods, as believed until
the 19th century when accident theory began to explain the
causal factors of accidents. Thus accident theories provide
explanation for occurrences of accidental losses and lay basic
foundational steps for effective accidental damage and loss
control and management. Some of the classical accident
causation theories reviewed in this work include; the Domino
theory, The Human Factor Theory (HFT), the Accident
Incident Theory (AIT), Epidemiological Theory, the systems
theory, the Accident Proneness Theory (APT), the
combination theory of accident causation, Behaviour Theory
(BT), the Energy Release Theory (ERT), energy damage
model [32]. Each of the accident causation theories attempts
to predict accident and thus prevent its occurrence.
2.2.2. The Domino Theory
Reference [33] observes that the domino theory was
developed and advanced by Heinrick in1959. In developing
the domino theory, Heinrick conducted a research on
industrial accident and concluded that 88% of accidents are
caused by unsafe acts committed by people, 10% by unsafe
condition and 2% by acts of God. The 2% caused by acts of
God, he termed unavoidable accident. Thus the domino
theory views that 98% of accident can be avoided by
avoiding the causal factors [34].The domino theory explained
that injury / loss results from series of events one of which is
the accident itself. An accident it explains only result from an
unsafe acts committed by someone and / or a physical
hazard. Essentially, removal of the unsafe act or the unsafe
condition prevents loss and damage. The theory states that
while most accident result from peoples unsafe behavior and
unsafe conditions, unsafe behaviours and conditions do not
always immediately result in accident [35]. Therefore finding
the reason why people commit unsafe behavior can guide in
adopting corrective measures. According to domino theory,
the severity of an accident loss or damage is by chance rather
than design and the accident that cause the loss and / or
damage is preventable. The opinion of the domino theory is
that management ought to take responsibilities for safety with
the supervisor being the key person in the prevention of
occupational and industrial accidents seeing as there were
indirect losses incurred besides direct ones [34]. Explaining
the Domino theory, references [34] and [35] proposed a
sequence consisting five factors that followed sequentially,
that is, one factor resulting in the next. The first was ancestry
and social environment which explains that negative traits
causing people to commit unsafe actions may be inherited or
acquired from the environment one was socialized. The
second factor is fault of a person which explains that people
act in unsafe manner as a result of the negative traits they
acquired. The third factor is unsafe act or physical hazard /
unsafe condition which directly result to accident. The fourth
77 Nwokedi Theophilus Chinonyerem et al.: Moses Ntor-Ue. Analysis of Vessel-Based Marine
Accidents and the Economic Risks to Nigeria
factor is accident which results in injury, damage and / or
loss. The fifth and last factor is injury, damage and / or loss
which is the consequence of accident. The figure below is an
illustration of accident and loss occurrence by the domino
theory.
Figure 3. Heinrich’s Domino Model of Accident Causation.
Source: Adopted from Disaster Management Institute, Bhopal, Online
Explanation of Domino theory.
2.2.3. Accident Investigation Theories
Reference [36] defines accident investigation (AI) as the
structural process of uncovering the sequence of events that
produced or had the potential to produce injury, death,
property damage and/or loss, to determine the causal factors
(root and surface causes), impacts and corrective action while
reference [32] proposes that the idea of accident investigation
is to apply analytical techniques to find the cause and
consequences of accident. Investigation employs test of
engineering experiments to discover the rate of accident root
causes and consequences while answering the question of
why the accident happened [32] The American Bureau of
Shipping [37] asserts that the role of the accident
investigation process is to provide proper safeguard to
prevent and mitigate accident effects. If adequate safeguards
are in place, any losses that occur will be acceptable losses.
Reference [37] notes that individual organizations and states
may however have other objectives to achieve with accident
investigation (AI) which may include:
a. To protect the safety and health if workers particularly
the human resources of the maritime industry.
b. To preserve the organization’s human capital and labour
resources.
c. To fulfill the legal and statutory obligations of the state
with regards to implementation of the IMO instruments
particularly the United Nations Conventions on Law of
the Seas (UNCLOS) which require coastal states to
conduct an inquiry and investigation into accidents in
their maritime jurisdiction and involving their flag
ships.
d. Improve quality reliability, output and productivity of
the sub-sector
e. Ensure continual and sustenance of service to clients
and customer
f. Comply with national regulatory and insurance
requirements
g. Educate management staff and employees
h. Control losses imposed by accident.
i. Demonstrate management concern and employee
involvement
j. Advice others of unrecognized risk and or more
effective risk management strategies
k. Comply with organizational and industry policy
l. Classify accidents and generate data.
It was reported by reference [37-38] that accident
investigation theories (AIT) aims to aid accident
investigation (AI) to fulfill investigation roles and therefore
cannot serve to merely explain proximate causal factors, as
accident cause theories do. Accident investigators employ
analytical, structural and scientific processes, dealing with
different levels of analysis to ascertain the root causes and
consequences of an accident, thus, while the cause theories
are good at explaining the accident phenomena, they do not
possess the dept of structural analysis needed to guide
investigation processes [37].
While the accident causation theories (ACT) may explain
the proximate causes of accident and the nearest intermediate
cause, there may exist serial (connected more than one)
intermediate cause and root causes, also connection often
times exist between and/or among the root, intermediate and
proximate causal factors which only thorough accident
investigation can reveal. These forms the basic reason for
specific accident investigation theories (AIT), to structurally,
analytically, and scientifically guide accident investigators
(AI’s) and investigation processes [39], [37]. Reference [33]
notes that among the accident investigation theories are; the
single event theory, the chain-of-events theory, the branched
event chain theory, and the multi-linear sequences (process)
theory.
2.2.4. The Single Event Theory
The single event accident investigation theory assume that
every accident consist of a single event that has a cause.
According to the theory, the investigative task is therefore
geared towards finding the single cause and correcting it. The
theory often relieves the victim of blame and is notorious for
blaming it on the factor beyond the victims control such as
fate, acts of God or ill luck. Thus it discourages further
examination/investigation into the accident phenomenon in
an attempt to forestall a reoccurrence of the same [40], [33]
[41]. The theory assumes reliability of accident phenomenon,
opining that someone or something failed, was at fault or to
blame. Otherwise accident is an act of God [41].
2.3. Accident/Risk Management Principles and Loss
Control Theories
Risk is defined as the effect of uncertainty on objectives
[42]. Reference [43] opines that risk is the likelihood or
probability that an event (incident) will occur and adversely
affect the achievement of an objective function. Risk itself
Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science 2017; 6(6): 72-84 78
has uncertainty [43]. According to [44] risk management is
the identification, assessment prioritization and response,
followed by coordinated and economical application of
resources to minimize, monitor, and control the probability
and impact of unfortunate events (accidents/risk) and to
maximize the realization of goals, objective function and
opportunities. The objective of risk management is to assure
that uncertainty does not deflect the endeavor from the
business goals [44]. Reference [45] views risk management
as the process that attempts to manage the uncertainty that
influences the achievement of objectives, with the goals of
reaching the objectives and thus creating value for the
organization in which it is applied.
It was observed by reference [43] that the theory and
principles of risk management processes, methods and
control are safety tools and devises which organizations and
safety managers must adopt to have good control over risks.
However professionals note that risk control and
management methods enunciated in the risk management
theory have certain key components in common which
includes: Internal environment, objective setting, risk
identification, risk assessment, risk response, information and
monitoring [43-46]. Reference [19], supporting the views of
[46] opines that risk management follows six (6) basic
process as depicted in figure 4 below.
Figure 4. Risk Management process.
Source: Risk Management process presented as a cycle based on the design
by At de Wild (Versilusi, 2014)
The first step is to clearly state the objective (goal) to be
achieved which also helps to derive exactly what is exposed
to risk. This is followed by risk identification which
identifies the events (risks) that form the hazards/threats to
the objectives. The result of the risk identification process is
a register, (list) containing internal and external risks that
form threat to the maritime property, persons or investment.
This is followed by the third (3) step which is assessment of
the likelihood of occurrence and impact of each identified
risk. Risk assessment can be done with either qualitative or
quantitative way. It is expected that the impact be expressed
in monetary quantities or magnitude of economic loss
(damages) and injuries. Both risk identification objective
setting and risk assessment are done using tools and methods
which were later discuss under formal safety assessment
(FSA).
The fourth process of risk prioritization is done by
comparing individual risk, frequently used methods here
include the expected value method, which ranks risks
according to the product of a risk probability and impact
(consequence) and plotting risks on a risk matrix which
offers a visual aid to compare risks. See figure 4, below in
risk matrix.
Source: Authors drawing
Figure 5. Ranking and comparing of Hazards/risk.
When risks have been prioritized an appropriate risk
response or management method is applied to mitigate,
manage or deal with risk. This include risk avoidance, risk
reduction, risk retention and risk transfer [19], [42], [46]. The
last process in the risk management process is monitoring to
ensure that the risk does not constitute threat anymore. Reassessment can often or periodically be done depending on
residual risk severity. This monitory step is the final step in
the risk assessment process and serve as a feedback
Mechanisms that closes as well as continuously sustain the
risk management process. References [45-46] agree that the
risk management theory identifies four strategic principles of
risk management for industrial risk management to include
risk avoidance/risk prevention, risk reduction, risk retention
and risk transfer (insurance).The adoption of either of the
above risk management strategies/principle or a combination
of strategies by organizations will however depend on the
expected utility to be derived from such. Decision theory is
required for choice making so that the risk management and
control principle that maximizes utility is preferred.
References [47-48] upheld the choice of risk management
tool based optimal utility criteria as best.
i. Risk Avoidance/Termination or Prevention
References [45], [49-50] agrees that risk avoidance as a
risk management option involves the termination,
elimination, prevention and/or shutting off of all activities
that causes the risk to exist. Risk avoidance may seem the
answer to all accident risks, but avoiding risks because of the
likelihood of accident also imposes a new risk of losing out
on the potential gain that acceptance of the risk prone activity
79 Nwokedi Theophilus Chinonyerem et al.: Moses Ntor-Ue. Analysis of Vessel-Based Marine
Accidents and the Economic Risks to Nigeria
or operation may have offered. Declining to invest in a
seaborne trade and maritime business venture to avoid the
risk of accident related loss will certainly also avoid the
possibility of earning profits [51].
ii. Risk Reduction
Since it is impossible to avoid an activity involving risk of
accident and still gain the potential and opportunities offered
by the avoided risk prone activity, and since marine business
enterprises themselves are exposed naturally to a pool of
marine perils/risk which an entrepreneur must have to
contend with (reasonably accept) in other to gain profit
and/or achieve objectives. It follows that risk reduction
strategies as a principle of risk management offers a better
option for industrial risk management than avoidance as it
seeks to mitigate risk, while still retaining/offering the
opportunity to gain from the potentials offered by such risk
prone operation [52]. Reference [53] explains that risk
reduction is risk optimization, which involves reducing the
severity of the loss or the likelihood of the loss from
occurring. For example, sprinklers are designed to put out a
fire to reduce the risk of loss by fire onboard. This strategy
may impose prohibitive cost and in some cases, the
mitigation strategy itself may create room for more loss by
imposing /creating a new risk dimension [54-54].
Acknowledging that risk can be positive or negative,
optimizing risks of economic losses means finding a balance
between negative risk and the benefit of the operation or
activity; and between risk reduction effort applied. Thus
reduction or optimization of risk of economic losses will
achieve levels of residual risks mitigated from non-tolerable
regions to tolerable or acceptable regions [56].
This implies that by risk reduction leading to risk
tolerance, the organization still bears the impact of the
economic losses, damages and injuries imposed by the
occurrence of the risk.
iii. Risk Retention
Reference [57] opines that risk retention involves
accepting the loss, or benefit from a risk when it occurs. True
self-insurance falls in this category. In the opinion of
reference [58-59] risk retention is risk tolerance, which
involves leaving the risk as it were without taking any action
of working to transfer/insure the risk of loss. This is possibly
obtainable where a risk of economic loss is of negligible size
and is considered an acceptable risk level either before or
after the implementation of other risk responses, and cannot
be further responded to. Furthermore, a risk of substantial
impact can be tolerated if the presence of the risk is vital for
the existence and continuity of an organization. Such risks
retained or tolerated must be subjected to monitoring to deter
it evolving from tolerably acceptable risk regions to
unacceptable risk regions.
Reference [60] observes that risk retention serve as a
viable strategy for small risk, where the cost of insuring
against the risk would be greater over time than the total
losses sustained. Reference [61] further reveal that all risk
that are avoided or transferred is retained by default. This
includes risks that are so large or catastrophic that they
cannot be insured against or the premium would be
impossible to be met. Risk retention may also be acceptable
option if the chance of a very large loss is small or if the cost
to insure for greater coverage amount is so great it would
hinder the goals of the organization too much.
iv. Risk Transfer (Insurance)
Risk transfer is viewed as sharing with another party (third
party) the burden of loss or the benefit of gain, from a risk,
and the measure to reduce the risk [54], [45]. Reference [19]
opines that risk transfer is fully or partially reducing the
impact or severity of loss or damage imposed by risk of
accident occurrence using risk sharing, made possible by
purchase of insurance policy to cover the property from risk
of loss. Thus purchase of an insurance contract is often
described as risk transfer. However, technically speaking, the
buyer of the insurance contract generally retains legal
responsibility for losses transferred. This means that
insurance may be defined more accurately as post-event
compensatory mechanisms. The risk still lies with the policy
holder, the insurance policy simply provides that ifan
accident (the event) occurs, involving the policy holder, then
some compensation (indemnity) may be payable to the policy
holder that is commensurate with the loss/damage [62]. In the
marine industry, the practice of marine insurance serve as a
risk transfer mechanisms for marine risks/accident
management and control.
3. Methodology
The study adopted an analytical method in which time
series data of 30 years period (1984 to 2013) on the
economic losses of three categories of damages/losses
imposed by accidents in the marine industry were collected
from Nigerian Insurers Digest 2003, 2008 and 2014 editions
and Central Bank of Nigeria annual financial statistical
bulletin, various editions and Nigerian national Petroleum
Corporation statistical report. Data on the Gross Domestic
Product of marine transport over the period from1984 to
2013 was also obtained to represent the output of the marine
industry and denoted by (Y) as the dependent variable. The
multiple regressions analysis statistical model was used to
analyze the time series using SPSS software. The GDPmarine
transport was used as the dependent variable Y and the
economic losses of shipping accidents, offshore oil and gas
drilling accidents, and marine oil spill accidents denoted with
X1, X2, and X3 respectively, forming the independent
variables. Using the method, the relationship among the four
variables is as modeled below:
Y =a + b1X1 + b2X2 +b3X3 + e (1)
Where Y = GDPMarine transport
a = constant term
X1 = Shipping accident economic loss
X2 = Offshore oil and gas drilling accident economic loss
X3 = Economic loss of marine oil spill accident
Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science 2017; 6(6): 72-84 80
b1….b3 = coefficients of terms.
e = error term
3.1. Discussion of Result and Findings
The findings from the result indicates that average output
of marine transport sub-sector measured by the Gross
Domestic Product within the period of the study is
907,203,000.00 naira, representing the mean contribution of
the marine transport sub-sector to the national output relative
to the investment made in the subsector within the period.
The result indicates mean shipping accidents, offshore O&G
drilling accidents and marine oil spill accident economic
losses of 1,633,633,300.00 naira, 916,041,733.00 naira and
138,561,582.80 naira respectively per annum from 1984 to
2013. This implies that loss control and safety management
measures (safety measures) has not achieved acceptable
results and/or targets particularly as it relates to shipping
accidents and offshore O&G drilling accident. This is
because comparisons of their mean losses over the period to
mean output of the industry in the same period shows higher
mean marine (shipping and offshore O&G) accidents losses
than mean output of the marine industry. See table 1 below:
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.
Mean Std. Deviation N
GDP Maritme 907203000.0000 1085000877.60699 30
Ship Accident Loss 1633633300.0000 2627483675.13462 30
Oil Spill Loss 138561582.8037 161752904.39467 30
Offshore O & Gas accident Loss 916041733.3333 2087199695.60681 30
Aggregate marine accident loss 2688236615.08 30
Source: Authors computation.
The aggregate mean marine accident economic loss based
on the result as shown in the table1 above is 2688236615.08
naira per annum. The implication is that more is lost in the
marine transport sub-sector economy to marine damage
accidents each year than the annual contribution of the
subsector to national output. The ratio of average aggregate
marine accidents economic loss to average output of the
subsector is 3:1, proving further the non acceptability of and
failure of present safety management and loss control
measures. There is no doubt that risk transfer may have
played a key role in the indemnification of these losses,
however, other loss control and safety tools could not limit
marine accident risk levels to acceptable regions (see risk
matrix in figure 4), considering the output (GDPmarime) of the
subsector. If the present trend continues, it is obvious that
economic sustainability of marine operations and seaborne
trade cannot be guaranteed.
Table 2. Modeling The Impact Of Marine Accidents Economic Losses On Gdpmarine transport and Test of Model Significance.
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 .798a
.637 .609 759982372.85481 .637 11.036 3 26 .000
Source: Authors computation.
The table 2 above shows that the multiple R indicating the
degree of association between the output of the marine subsector and marine accidents economic loss is 0.798. The
indication is that approximately 80 percent degree of
association exists between the dependent (marine transport
output) and independent variables (shipping accidents, O&G
drilling accidents and marine oil spill accidents economic
losses). The R square is 0.637. The R square value shows that
63.7 percent variation in the Gross Domestic Product of the
marine transport economy over the years covered by the
study is explained by the economic losses of maritime
accident. Thus the model is highly significant.
The coefficient of terms of marine accidents economic
losses formodeling the quantitative relationship and impacts
is as shown the table below:
Table 3. Parameter coefficients of marine accidents Losses.
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
T Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 332156363.041 191967632.244 1.730 .095
Ship Accident Loss .167 .067 .405 2.480 .020
Oil Spill Loss .837 .918 .125 .912 .370
Offshore Accident .203 .082 .391 2.478 .020
Source: Authors computation based on collected data
From the table3, the model showing the quantitative
effects of shipping accidents economic loss, economicloss of
offshore O&G accidents, and marine oil spill accidents loss
on the output of the marine transport subsector is: Y =
81 Nwokedi Theophilus Chinonyerem et al.: Moses Ntor-Ue. Analysis of Vessel-Based Marine
Accidents and the Economic Risks to Nigeria
332156363.1 + 0.167X1 + 0.837X2 + 0.203X3 + e
Table 4. Comparative Analysis On Shipping Accidents Economic Loss And Insurance Expenditure On Shipping Accidents Loss Control.
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1
Shipping Accident 1633633300.0000 30 1085000877.606 1467552320.82308 Insurance expenditure on losss control and management.
6449734181290.3220 30 8848993990966.45300 1589326238380.64580
Source: Authors computation.
As indicated in the table, the mean shipping accident
economic loss over the period covered in the study amounts
to 1633633300.00 naira while mean insurance expenditure on
shipping accident loss management is 6449734181290.32
naira. The difference of the two means is
5342691905064.5naira in favour of insurance expenditure on
shipping accidents loss management. The result shows that
more has been expended in management of shipping
accidents than average economic losses over the period.
3.2. Test of Hypotheses
Table 5. Hypothesis Ho1: T-statistic on significance of impact of shipping accidents economic loss on marine transport GDP.
Hypothesis t-score t-critical p-value Sig.(p < 0.05) Decision
Ho1 2.48 1.701 0.020 Yes Reject Ho1
Source: Authors own computation based on data collected.
The result shows that shipping accidents economic loss has significant impact on the output of the marine transport
subsector. Thus we reject the null hypothesis that shipping accidents economic loss has no significant impact on marine
transport subsector output to accept the alternate.
Table 6. Hypothesis Ho2; T-statistic on significance of impact of economic loss of off shore O&G accidents on marine transport subsector output.
Hypothesis t-score t-critical p-value Sig.(p < 0.05) Decision
Ho2 2.50 1.701 0.020 Yes Reject Ho2
Source: Authors own computation based on research data.
The result shows a rejection of null hypothesis Ho2 and the acceptance of the alternate that economic loss of offshore O&G
accidents has significant impact marine transport subsector output.
Table 7. Hypothesis Ho3: T-statistic on significance of impact of marine oil spill accidents economic loss on marine transport output.
Hypothesis t-score t-critical p-value Sig.(p < 0.05) Decision
Ho3 0.912 1.701 0.370 No Accept Ho3
Source: Authors own computation based on research data.
The analysis shows the acceptance of null hypothesis Ho3. Thus, marine oil spill accidents economic loss has no significant
effects on the output of the marine transport subsector.
Table 8. Hypothesis Ho4: T-statistic on difference between shipping accidents economic loss and insurance expenditure on shipping accidents loss control.
Hypothesis t-score t-critical p-value Sig.(p < 0.05) Decision
Ho4 4.057 1.701 0.000 Yes Reject Ho4
Source: Authors own computation based on research data.
The result reveals that there is a significant difference
between shipping accidents loss and insurance expenditure
on shipping accidents loss management and control. More
insurance expenditure has been made than actual losses
suffered over the period.
4. Conclusion
From the foregoing, the average aggregate marine
accidents economic losses in the period covered in the study
is 2,608,236,616.013 naira. Shipping accidents economic
loss, and economic loss of offshore O & G drilling accidents
shows significant impacts on the output (GDPmarine transport) of
the marine transport sub-sector. However, marine oil spill
economic loss failed to show any significant effects on the
output of the subsector. Moreover, significant difference
exists between shipping accidents economic loss and
insurance expenditure on management of shipping accident
losses. On the average, more financial cost has been
expended on risk transfer as a loss control mechanism than
Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science 2017; 6(6): 72-84 82
actual losses suffered.
Recommendation
Based on the findings of the study, in order to optimize the
economic losses imposed by accidents in the marine industry,
safety management measures and loss control tools should be
focused more on shipping accidents and offshore O&G
drilling accidents which impact very significantly on the
output of the subsector.
Moreover, since Nigeria as an International Maritime
Organization (IMO) member country has over the years
adopted and ratified majority of the IMO Convention
instruments for Safety regulation, such as the safety of life at
sea (SOLAS) 1974 as amended, standards of training
certification and watch keeping (STCW) 1995 as amended,
international regulations for the control of marine pollution
from ships (MARPOL) 73/78, the load lines (LL) convention
of 1966, the regulations for the control of vessel collision at
sea (COLREGS) 1972,the international convention on
maritime search and rescue (SARS) 1979 as amended, the
international ship and port facility security (ISPS) code, Port
States control (PSC) etc, diligent implementation of these
safety instruments will help to minimize the high degree and
increase in trend of marine-accident induced output losses in
the subsector. This will subsequently impact on the high
expenditure on marine insurance being made at present in
managing marine accidents by ensuring lowered costs of
insurance premium.
References
[1] Vouker Schellhammer (2014) Annual report on maritime
casualty investigation. Federal bureau of maritime casualty
investigation, ministry of transport and digital infrastructure,
Germany.
[2] MAIB (2008) Annual Statistical Report of the marine
Accident Investigation Boards. Available at: www.amem.at
Retrieved on 22/10/2016.
[3] Nnadi, K. U. (2014) The Economics of market
Contestabilityin Nigeria Coastal Shipping, Seminar Paper at
the School of Management Technology, Federal University of
Technology, Owerri.
[4] Nze, I. C. (2013) Analysis of the Fatality Rates of Boat and
Ferry Accident on Inland Waterways in Nigeria, IOSR Journal
of Business and ManagementVol.11(2): 17-20.
[5] UNCTAD (2014) Annual Statistical Report on Maritime
Transport. A Publication of the United Nations Convention on
Trade and Commerce.
[6] CBN (2013) Central Bank of Nigeria Statistical Bulletin, 2013
edition.
[7] NIA (2014) Insurance Digest, Annual Statistical Publication of
the Nigeria Insurers Association, Lagos.
[8] NPA (2014) Nigerian Ports Authority Annual Statistical
Bulletin, 2014 edition. Available at http//
www.npa.org.ng/Retrieved on 23/12/2016.
[9] Nwokedi T. C., Okoroji L. I. and Onyemechi C. (2014) An
Analysis for Reduction in Economic Loss from Damage Accident
in use of Transport Modes: A Comparative Study, Journal of
Economics and Sustainable Development Vol.5 (8): 182-189.
[10] IMO (1997): FSA Trial Application to High Speed Passenger
Catamaran Vessel, London, International Maritime
Organization: MSC68/14/2.
[11] Nwokoro I. A., Nwokedi, T. C., (2015) An Assessment of the
Economic and Financial Capacity of Indigenous Underwriting
firms for Marine Risk and Investment Cover in Nigeria,
International Journal of Research in Commerce, IT and
Management Vol. 5(3):62-66.
[12] Eberhard Feess and Ulrich Hege (1999) The role of insurance
in the Adjudication of multiparty accidents. International
review of law and economics 19:69-85.
[13] RistoJ. and Kim, S. (2009) Safety performance indicators for
Maritime Safety, Department of Applied Mechanics, Helsinki
University of Technology.
[14] Ogwude, I. C. (1998) Valuation of Reduction in Traffic
Accidents, The Trainer: Journal of the Institute of Transport
and Logistics Zaria, June-September (1998): 18—27.
[15] Ando A. W., et al. (2007) Natural Resource Damage
Assessment Methods and Cases, WMRC’s Research Report
Series. Available online at: https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/wrurc.uiuc.edu/
Retrieved on July 6, 2014.
[16] Grey, D., & Rob, F. (1997) The Economic Impacts of Accident
on the Marine Industry, Prepared for the U.S. Coast Guard,
Standards Assessment and Development Division, Washington,
D. C.
[17] Simo, Salminen (2012), Theories of Occupational Accident.
Finish Institute of Occupational Health, Finland.
[18] OSHA (2013) Accident Investigation and Control. Available
at: //.www.oshatrain.org.Retrieved 12/06/2016.
[19] Bijwaard G. and Knapp S. (2009) Analysis of ship life cycles
– the impact of economic cycles and ship inspections. Marine
policy volume 33: 350-369.
[20] Webster (1983) Webster online dictionary. Available
at:www.webster.org. Retrieved 12/06/2016.
[21] Anyanwu, J. O. (2014) The Causes and Minimization of
Maritime Disasters on Passenger Vessels, Global Journal of
Researches in Engineering 14(2):1-13.
[22] Rosa E. A. (2013) The logical structure of the social
amplication of risk framework (SARF): meta-theoretical
foundation and policy implications. In N. Pidegeon, R.E.
Kaspersen and P. Slovic (eds).The social amplification of risk.
Cambridge University press, Cambridge.
[23] Trevisani, Daniele (2007) The Direction of change. Milan,
Franco Angeli, ISBN: 9788846483775.
[24] ISO (2009) Risk Management: Principles and guidelines on
implementation. International Standard organization.
Document no: 31000 – 2009.
[25] Pedro, A. C. and Guedes, S., (2008) Casual factors in accident
of high-speed craft and conventional ocean-going vessels.
Reliability engineering and system safety 93: 1292-1304.
83 Nwokedi Theophilus Chinonyerem et al.: Moses Ntor-Ue. Analysis of Vessel-Based Marine
Accidents and the Economic Risks to Nigeria
[26] Onwuegbudunam, D. E. (2013) An Analysis of Determinants
of Accident Involving Marine Vessels in Nigeria’s Waterways,
Journal of Management Science and Engineering 7(3): 39-45.
[27] Gorkce, C. C., (2004) The impact of shipping accident on
marine environment: study of Turkish seas. European
scientific journal vol.10, (23) 1857-788.
[28] Akhatar M. J. (2014) Fatigue at sea- a Manning problem,
Journal of Maritime Research XI (III): 27-42.America Army
material command (1971) Fault Tree analysis as an aid to
improved performance. US Army material command (AMC)
safety digest, May 1971.
[29] Harilaos, et al (1998): An Analysis of Maritime Transportation
Risk Factors, Paper Presentation at ISOPE Conference,
Montreal, Canada.
[30] Adebiyi, K. A. (2008) Estimation of Air Traffic Accident Cost
in Nigeria, Pacific Journal of Science and Technology 9(2):
420 – 425.
[31] Young Sik Toon, Dong-Han Han and Wan Chul Yoon (2016)
Application of Activity Theory to analysis of human-related
accident: Method and case studies. Reliability Engineering
and system safety Journal 150 (2016) 22-34.
[32] Ludwig, Benner Jr. (2012) Accident Investigations: A Case for
New Perceptions and Methodologies. Available at:
//www.ludwigbanner.org., Retrieved on 12/06/2016.
[33] Rasmusen J. and Svedung I. (2002) Graphic representation of
accident scenarios: mapping system structure and the
causation of accidents. Safety science Vol. 40(2002) 397 –
417.
[34] Heirich, H. (1959) Industrial Accident Prevention: A Scientific
Approach (4th edition). New York, McGraw Hill.
[35] Viner D. (1999) Accident Analysis and Risk Control. New
Delhi, Derek Viner Pty Ltd.
[36] Jan Hovden, Eirik Albrechtsen and Ivonne Herrera Pork
(2010) Is there a need for new theories, models and
approaches to occupational accident prevention? Safety
Science Journal Vol. 48 (2010) 950 – 956
[37] ABS (2014) Risk Assessment Applications for the Marine and
Offshore Oil and Gas Industries. Houston, American Bureau
of Shipping.
[38] Arben Mullai and Ulf Paulson (2011) A grounded Theory
Model for analysis of Marine Accidents. Accident Analysis
and Prevention Journal Vol. 43(2011) 1590-1603.
[39] Kin Hyungju, Haugen Stein and Utue I. Bouwer (2016)
Assessment of accident theories for major accidents focusing
on the MV SEWOL disaster: Similarities, differences and
discussion for a combined approach. Safety Science Journal
82 (2016) 410 – 420.
[40] Ludwig, Benner Jr. (1979), Four Accident Investigation
Games Simulations of the Accident Investigation Process.
Oakton, VA, Lufred Industries Inc.
[41] Ludwig, Benner Jr. (1978) Accident Theory and their
Implications for Research. Paper Presented at the Joint
International Meeting of the American Association for
Automotive Medicine and the International Association or
Accident and Traffic Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan. July
10.
[42] Osiris A. and Valdez Banda (2015) A risk analysis of Winter
navigation in finish sea areas. Accident Analysis and
prevention Journal Vol.79 (2015) 100-116.
[43] Cortardan, J., (2009) The digital hand: How computers
changed thew work America Industrial Loss Control Sector.
Oxford University Press, New York.
[44] Hubbard, Douglas (2009) The failure of Risk Management:
Why itis broken and how to fix it. New York, John Wiley and
Sons.
[45] Coso (2004) Enterprise Risk Management integrated
framework. Available at http//www.coso.org. Retrieved on
23/12/2016.
[46] Andrea, R., Lara, L. T., Sergi, C., and Joaquim, C., (2009)
economic Assessment of damages originated by major
accidents in port areas. Journal of loss prevention in the
process industries.
[47] Irukwu J. O (2007) Extending the traditional frontiers of
insurance. Journal of the life officers committee of the Nigeria
insurance association Lagos vol 5 (2997) pg 66-73.
[48] Axel, H. (2014) Safety Assessment of New e-Navigation
Systems, International Journal of e-Navigation and Maritime
Economy 1(2014): 14-28.
[49] Wayne K. Talley (1999) Determinants of the property damage
costs of tanker accidents. Transportation research part D 413-
426.
[50] Difford, P. (2011) Redressing the Balance: a common sense
approach to causation. U.S.A, Accidental Books.
[51] Reason James (2001) Managing the Risks of Organizational
Accidents. London, Hants Ashgate Publishing Limited.
[52] Ert, E & Erev, I. (2008) Theregation of attractive giantess,
Loss aversion and the Iemon avoidable heuristics. Journal of
economic Psychology, 715-723.
[53] Thorndyke, R. L., (1951) The Human factor in Accident.US
Air force School of Aviation Medicine, Project Report, Project
No. 21-30-001.
[54] International Standard Organization (ISO, 2004) “White Paper
on risk Governance: Toward an Integrated approach. ISO,
Geneva.
[55] Haddon, W. Jr. (1968) The Changing Approach to the
Epidemiology, prevention and Amelioration of Truama. The
Transition to Approaches Etiologically Rather than
Descriptively Based. Journal of Public Health Vol. 58(8) 70-
79.
[56] Sajid Moly Uldin, Khurrun S. Mughal, Unier Farooq (2013)
Impact of cost of Marine and general Insurance on
International Trade and economic growth in Pakistan. World
Applied Sciences Journal Vol. 28 (5) 659-671.
[57] Haddon W.(2003) Energy Damage and the Ten Counter
measure Strategies. The Journal of Trauma, Vol. 13 (4) 142-
220.
[58] Pennings, J. M & Smiths, A. (2000) Assessing the Courstuct
Validity of risk attitude. Management Science, 1337-1348.
[59] Flyvbjerg, Bent and Budzier, Alexander (2011) Why your
Project may be Riskier than you Think. Harvard Business
Review 89 (9): 601 – 603.
Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science 2017; 6(6): 72-84 84
[60] Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976) Decisions with multiple
objectives: Preferences and Value tradeoffs. John Wiley &Son.
New York.
[61] Okon, J. E. (2012) Safety and Security Aspects of Maritime
Transport, Uyo: Modern Business Press.
[62] Qingji, Zhou and Vinh, V. Thai (2016), Fuzzy and grey
Theories in failure mode and effect analysis for tanker
equipment failure prediction. Safety Science Journal 83
(2016) pg:74- 79.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: AI Plagiarism free essay writing tool, Australian best tutors, best trans tutors, buy essay uk, cheap dissertation writer