
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0309667
PONE-D-24-02990
Research Article
Medicine and Health Sciences
Epidemiology
Medical Risk Factors
Engineering and Technology
Navigation
Engineering and Technology
Transportation
Ships
Engineering and Technology
Transportation
Engineering and Technology
Equipment
Safety Equipment
Medicine and Health Sciences
Public and Occupational Health
Safety
Safety Equipment
Engineering and Technology
Management Engineering
Risk Management
Computer and Information Sciences
Data Management
Data Visualization
Infographics
Charts
Earth Sciences
Marine and Aquatic Sciences
Marine Technology
Biology and Life Sciences
Marine Biology
Marine Technology
Earth Sciences
Marine and Aquatic Sciences
Marine Biology
Marine Technology
A navigational risk evaluation of ferry transport: Continuous risk management matrix based on fuzzy Best-Worst Method
A navigational risk evaluation of ferry transport
Pham Linh Thi Validation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2632-4954
Hoang Long Van Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Project administration 2 *
1 Faculty of Accounting—Finance, Dong Nai Technology University, Bien Hoa City, Vietnam
2 Faculty of Management, Ho Chi Minh University of Law, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Gul Muhammet Editor
Istanbul University: Istanbul Universitesi, TÜRKIYE
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: longvanhoang1976@gmail.com, hvlong@hcmulaw.edu.vn
3 9 2024
2024
19 9 e030966723 2 2024
15 8 2024
© 2024 Pham, Van Hoang
2024
Pham, Van Hoang
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Ferry transport has witnessed numerous fatal accidents due to unsafe navigation; thus, it is of paramount importance to mitigate risks and enhance safety measures in ferry navigation. This paper aims to evaluate the navigational risk of ferry transport by a continuous risk management matrix (CRMM) based on the fuzzy Best-Worst Method (BMW). Its originalities include developing CRMM to figure out the risk level of risk factors (RFs) for ferry transport and adopting fuzzy BWM to estimate the probability and severity weights vector of RFs. Empirical results show that twenty RFs for ferry navigation are divided into four zones corresponding to their risk values, including extreme-risk, high-risk, medium-risk, and low-risk areas. Particularly, results identify three extreme-risk RFs: inadequate evacuation and emergency response features, marine traffic congestion, and insufficient training on navigational regulations. The proposed research model can provide a methodological reference to the pertinent studies regarding risk management and multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA).

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Data AvailabilityAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

It has been argued that ferry transport is playing a more and more critical role in the economic development of countries, especially nations having long coastlines. More particularly, ferries contribute considerably to regional integration and accessibility and, in turn, provide a cost-effective means of transporting goods and services [1, 2]. Additionally, cruise ferries often serve as a scenic and enjoyable mode of transportation for tourists, thus facilitating the development of tourism in coastal areas [3, 4]. However, the safety of ferry transportation has attracted much concern from governments. On top of that, recent accidents necessitate a comprehensive approach to mitigate ferry navigation-related risks.

Recently, ferry transport has witnessed numerous fatal accidents due to unsafe navigation. According to Golden and Weisbrod [5], about 232 ferry incidents occurred between 2000 and 2014 in 43 countries, with a total of 21,574 fatalities appearing, averaging 130 deaths per incident and 1,541 deaths annually. In general, developing countries experienced 94% of total accidents and 97% of total fatalities. Besides, some primary reasons for such disasters were reported, such as gas explosions [6], fire [5], capsizing [7], propulsion system malfunctions [8], misjudging distances [1], etc. Vietnam Inland Waterways Administration (VIWA) officially declared that 679 navigational accidents in terms of ferry transport happened between 2014 and 2020 by some leading causes, for example, mistakes in navigation (13.21%), crew distraction (51.07%), inadequate maintenance (23.21%), overcrowding (4.99%), and propulsion system malfunctions (11.44%). Thus, these occurrences not only emphasize the susceptibility of ferry transportation but also stress the crucial necessity for mitigating risks and consistently enhancing safety measures in ferry navigation.

According to Aven [9], a traditional risk management matrix (TRMM) has been adopted extensively to assess risks in ferry transport, because it allows for the quantification of risks based on their potential impact and probability of occurrence. By using TRMM, risk managers can assign qualitative or quantitative values to the likelihood (or probability) and severity (or consequence) of specific risks. These values are then plotted on a matrix to visualize the level of risk associated with different scenarios. Nonetheless, values assigning specific risks are discrete numbers (i.e., 1~5); thus, the weight of probability and severity are discontinuous values. For that reason, TRMM has some drawbacks, such as weak consistency [10], betweenness [11], and consistent coloring [12]. Therefore, the concept of the continuous risk management matrix (CRMM) is proposed to overcome this shortcoming.

Moreover, risk evaluation in ferry transport is characterized as a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) problem [13]. In the case of ferry transport, where various factors contribute to the complexity of risk, MCDA allows decision-makers (DMs) to consider multiple criteria simultaneously when assessing risks. Nevertheless, some of the most common tools of MCDA, such as AHP, ANP, and SAW, require numerous pairwise comparisons (PCs) of risks, thereby not only weakening their practical application, but also increasing the inconsistency of PCs [14]. To cope with this challenge, the Best-Worst Method (BWM) developed by Rezaei [15] has been adopted extensively to solve MCDA. Compared with the classic tools of MCDA, the primary strength of BWM is fewer PCs, thus prone to obtaining DMs’ judgment and boosting the consistency of subjective evaluation. Additionally, it is illustrated that DMs’ subjective assessment is often uncertain and imprecise. Accordingly, the theory of the fuzzy set is incorporated into BWM to allow for the representation of degrees of such uncertainty and vagueness.

To sum up, motivations for this research is as follow. First, the safety of ferry transportation has attracted much concern from governments. On top of that, recent accidents necessitate a comprehensive approach to mitigate ferry navigation-related risks. Second, ferry transport has currently witnessed numerous fatal accidents due to unsafe navigation. Thus, these accidents not only emphasize the susceptibility of ferry transportation but also stress the crucial necessity for mitigating risks and consistently enhancing safety measures in ferry navigation. Third, TRMM has been adopted extensively to assess risks in ferry transport. Nonetheless, TRMM has some drawbacks that should be overcome. Therefore, CRMM is proposed to deal with this shortcoming. Fourth, compared with the classic tools of MCDA, the advantage of BWM is fewer PCs, thus increasing its application. Additionally, DMs’ subjective assessment is arguably uncertain and imprecise that is coped with the fuzzy set theory.

To fill the literature gap, this current paper aims to carry out a navigational risk evaluation of ferry transport by the CRMM based on fuzzy BWM. To accomplish that, risk factors (RFs) affecting the risk of navigational safety for ferry transportation are first identified. Afterwards, fuzzy BWM is adopted to calculate the probability and severity of such RFs. Then, CRMM is constructed to rank RFs’ risk value. Finally, some major ferry operators in Vietnam (the FO-VN case) are empirically surveyed to verify the proposed research model.

Key contributions of this study include the following:

The current paper identifies five dimensions with twenty RFs for ferry navigation. By means of CRMM, RFs are divided into four zones corresponding to their risk values, including extreme-risk, high-risk, medium-risk, and low-risk areas.

The application of fuzzy BWM in calculating the probability and severity of RFs can provide a methodological reference to the MCDA research. Compared with the pairwise comparison-based tools (i.e., AHP, ANP, and SAW), BWM does not require a full pairwise comparison matrix. In addition, integrating fuzzy theory into BWM allows a more realistic representation of uncertainty, vagueness, and imprecision.

As an empirical study, the paper surveys three major FOs in Vietnam to verify the proposed research model. Results identify three extreme-risk RFs: inadequate evacuation and emergency response features, marine traffic congestion, and insufficient training on navigational regulations.

The subsequent parts of this paper are structured as follows: Section 2 presents the literature review of this study. Section 3 then elucidates the research methods. The case study is detailed in Section 4. Lastly, section 5 encompasses conclusions, limitations, and suggestions for future research directions.

2. Literature review

It has been argued that marine transport in general and ferry transport in particular are accident-prone sectors [16, 17]. Based on the extensive literature review and marine transport’s features, the below section presents risk factors affecting the navigation safety of ferry transport.

Human factors are presumably indispensable in ferry transport; thus, various risks associated with them can significantly impact the safety and efficiency of maritime operations. Yuan, Wang [18] argued that crew fatigue regularly occurs in marine transport. They explained that ferry crews often work long hours and irregular schedules, thus affecting their cognitive function, reaction times, and decision-making abilities. According to Xue, Papadimitriou [8], fatigued crew members may struggle to respond effectively to unexpected situations, thereby increasing the likelihood of errors and accidents. Another risk factor impacting the safety of ferry transport is crew unfamiliarity with vessel systems. Aziz, Ahmed [19] demonstrated that inadequate knowledge of the ferry’s intricate machinery and technology can result in operational errors in ferry navigation. Uğurlu, Yıldırım [20] pointed out that a lack of crew training and competence can compromise the crew’s ability to navigate ships safely, and use onboard equipment effectively. Also, inadequate training increases the probability of human error, and potentially causing accidents [21]. Some prior studies agreed that communication breakdown is a pervasive risk factor in maritime transport, especially in emergency scenarios, where clear and precise communication is paramount. According to Nguyen, Ngo [1], misunderstandings in communication among crew members can have many severe consequences, such as navigation errors [22], maneuvering conflicts [23], and equipment operation mistakes [24]. One might conclude that by addressing these human factors and associated risks, FOs can enhance the overall safety and reliability of maritime transportation.

Similar to human factors, navigational equipment is also a critical component in ferry transport. Thence, its functioning-related risks can create many serious challenges to ferry safety. Hsu, Tai [7] postulated that the malfunction of electronic navigation systems (i.e., GPS and radar) occurs rather frequently in marine operations. Besides, using outdated navigational charts in ferry transport may pose a substantial risk to maritime safety. It is evident nautical charts are indispensable tools for ensuring the safe passage of vessels through waterways, since they provide crucial information about the depth of water [8], the location of navigational hazards [25], and the configuration of the seabed [26]. Accordingly, the potential for navigational errors and incidents will significantly increase if these charts become inaccurate or outdated.

Additionally, limited visibility of navigational aids (i.e., buoys, lighthouses, and beacons) causes severe risks for ferry transport, especially during unfavorable weather conditions or low-light circumstances. Wang, Liu [27] illustrated that poor visibility can restrict crews from identifying important points at sea, thus compromising navigating safely through waterways. Moreover, many prior research agreed that the lack of redundancy and backup systems for navigational equipment in ferry transport represents a considerable vulnerability [28], and generates risks to maritime safety and operational continuity [29]. Wang, Liu [30] also explained that when a technical malfunction or failure in the primary navigational equipment happens, the absence of backup systems implies that FOs and crews do not have any other way to navigate vessels safely.

Navigation regulations are arguably the backbone of safe and efficient maritime transport. Thus, the disobedience of these regulations can cause numerous devastating risks to maritime navigation safety. Başhan, Demirel [31] pointed out that failure to adhere to internationally recognized rules, viz., COLREGs (International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea), can lead to confusion and potentially dangerous situations, especially in high-traffic areas or during encounters with other vessels. Moreover, FOs must navigate through a maze of regulations; thus, a lack of understanding of local rules can result in navigational errors [32], increasing the risk of collisions and other incidents [33]. Further, Fan, Wang [34] demonstrated that without proper training on maritime regulations, the crew may find it challenging to interpret and respond to navigational signals. In addition, some previous research concluded that poor communication with maritime authorities further exacerbates the risks associated with navigation regulations [35].

The design of vessels in ferry transport is of paramount importance in ensuring the safety and effectiveness of maritime operations. First, inadequate stability and seakeeping characteristics, which are defined as a vessel’s ability to remain at sea in all conditions and carry out its intended mission, can lead to the risk of capsizing, especially in the prevailing weather conditions and sea-state [36]. Another design-related risk is poor visibility from the bridge. It is highly admitted that navigating a ship under conditions of limited visibility is one of the most difficult challenges in ensuring a safe journey at sea, since it can increase the probability of a collision and grounding by two-fold [37, 38]. Unfortunately, this risk factor often happens in least-developed and developing nations, where the utilization of old and low-equipped ship in water transport is still common due to limited financial resources and the lack of regulatory frameworks and enforcement. Next, according to Akyuz [39], a ferry equipped with redundancy in propulsion systems may reduce the likelihood of system failures, thus ensuring its vital systems remain operational, even in the face of adversity. Additionally, the design of evacuation routes, life-saving equipment, and emergency response mechanisms must be carefully considered to ensure the swift and safe evacuation of passengers and crew during a crisis [40, 41].

Ferry transport is inherently influenced by external environmental factors that can introduce devastating risks to maritime operations. It has been argued that unpredictable weather patterns (i.e., storms, high winds, and rough seas) can cause many substantial challenges to ferry navigation, and increase risks of capsizing, collisions, and grounding [42, 43]. Besides, tidal and current conditions presumably present another set of risks, particularly in coastal and narrow waterways. Sys, Van de Voorde [44] explained that rapid changes in tidal flow and strong currents can affect a ferry’s maneuverability, making navigation more complex and increasing the probability of sea accidents. Further, according to Kulkarni, Goerlandt [45], floating debris and waterway obstacles can cause vessel damage and navigation hazards. More specifically, some debris (i.e., logs or containers) can damage the vessel’s hull or propulsion systems [46], thereby causing operational disruptions and sea accidents [47]. Additionally, Xu, Ma [48] illustrated that marine traffic congestion in busy ports and narrow channels also introduces the risk of collisions and challenges in maintaining safe distances between vessels.

In conclusion, the navigational risk evaluation helps marine operators assess the hazards and risks affecting vessel navigation. Therefore, identifying RFs of marine transport is of paramount importance to guarantee navigation safety, thereby reducing potential accidents, and loss of lives and goods for the fast-ferry transportation. Table 1 also summarize the relevant literature.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309667.t001 Table 1 Summary of the relevant literature.

Challenges	References	Solutions	Strengths	Weaknesses	
1. Human Factors	
Crew fatigue	Yuan et al. (2021); Xue et al. (2021)	Improved scheduling and rest periods	Enhances cognitive function and decision-making	Requires significant operational changes	
Crew unfamiliarity with vessel systems	Aziz et al. (2019); Uğurlu et al. (2015)	Comprehensive training programs	Reduces operational errors	Training can be time-consuming and costly	
Communication breakdowns	Nguyen et al. (2022); Jon et al. (2021); Amro et al. (2020); Pan & Hildre (2018)	Standardized communication protocols	Improves response in emergencies	Implementation consistency can be challenging	
2. Navigational Equipment	
Malfunction of electronic navigation systems	Hsu et al. (2022)	Regular maintenance and updates	Ensures accurate navigation	Requires constant monitoring and resources	
Outdated navigational charts	Xue et al. (2021); Mohammed et al. (2016); Hiremath et al. (2016)	Regular chart updates	Provides accurate navigation data	Dependent on timely updates	
Limited visibility of navigational aids	Wang et al. (2019)	Enhanced visibility technology	Improves navigation in poor conditions	Technology may be expensive	
Lack of redundancy in equipment	Wang & Chin (2016); Mia et al. (2021)	Implementing backup systems	Ensures operational continuity	Increases initial setup costs	
3. Navigation Regulations	
Disobedience of regulations	Başhan et al. (2020)	Strict enforcement and training	Ensures compliance and safety	Requires continuous monitoring	
Lack of understanding of local rules	Ung (2018; Arof & Nair (2017)	Regular regulatory training	Reduces navigational errors	Training programs need regular updates	
Poor communication with authorities	Baldauf & Hong (2016)	Improved communication systems	Enhances coordination	Implementation and maintenance can be difficult	
4. Vessel Design	
Inadequate stability and seakeeping	Ozturk & Cicek (2019)	Design improvements	Reduces capsizing risk	Design changes can be costly	
Poor visibility from the bridge	Howe et al. (2016); Solomon et al. (2021)	Advanced design standards	Improves navigation safety	Upgrading old vessels can be difficult	
Lack of redundancy in propulsion systems	Akyuz (2017)	Redundant systems in design	Ensures continuous operation	Increased design complexity	
Ineffective evacuation routes	Ung (2021); Wood et al. (2018)	Improved emergency designs	Enhances safety during crises	Design changes can be expensive	
5. External Environmental Factors	
Unpredictable weather patterns	Cui (2019; X. Wang et al. (2021)	Advanced weather forecasting	Reduces risk of accidents	Forecasting technology may be limited	
Tidal and current conditions	Sys et al. (2020)	Advanced navigation systems	Improves maneuverability	Technology can be costly	
Floating debris and obstacles	Kulkarni et al. (2020); Chang et al. (2015); Abbassi et al. (2017)	Regular monitoring and clearing	Reduces navigation hazards	Requires continuous effort	
Marine traffic congestion	Xu et al. (2020)	Improved traffic management	Enhances safety in busy areas	Management systems need regular updates	

3. Methods

3.1 Research framework

Fig 1 is the flowchart visually representing the process of this research study. After determining research objectives, the paper finds out risk factors of ferry transport navigation thanks to expert consultation and relevant literature. Then, fuzzy BWM is adopted to calculate severity and probability of risk factors. Next, CRMM is established to assess navigational risks of ferry transport. Ultimately, some policies are suggested to improve navigational risks of ferry transport.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309667.g001 Fig 1 Research flowchart.

3.2 Fuzzy Best-Worst Method

3.2.1 Triangular fuzzy number

Fuzzy set theory is a mathematical framework that can deal with problems of ambiguous, subjective and imprecise judgments [49, 50]. Extended from classical set theory, whose elements either belong to a set or do not, elements in fuzzy set theory can have degrees of membership μa˜(x) between 0 and 1, representing the degree to which an element belongs to a set.

Definition 1: a˜ is defined as a fuzzy number if its representation is given by: a˜={(x,μa˜(x))∣x∈ℝ}. Here, (x,μa˜(x)) is an ordered pair, where x is a real number and μa˜(x) is its degree of membership in the fuzzy number a˜.

The membership function μa˜(x) satisfies the following conditions:

0≤μa˜(x)≤1 for all x in the real number line.

μa˜(x) is a continuous function.

The support of x, denoted by supp(x), is the set of all x for which μa˜(x)>0.

The union of the supports of all elements in x covers the entire real number line.

Definition 2: A fuzzy number a˜∈ℝ is defined as a triangular fuzzy number (TFN) if its membership function is given by [51]: μa˜(x)={0,x<lx−lm−l,l≤x<mu−xu−m,m≤x≤u0,x>u. (1)

Where the lower limit (l), the mode (m), and the upper limit (u) are three parameters of a TNF.

Definition 3: The Graded Mean Integration Representation (GMIR) of a˜i=(li,mi,ui), denoted as R(a˜i), is a method used to compute its expected value. Symbolically: R(a˜i)=li+4mi+ui6. (2)

3.2.2 Fuzzy BWM

BWM was developed by Rezaei [15] to help decision-makers identify and prioritize criteria based on numerous pairwise comparisons. Eq (3) reveals how the pairwise comparison matrix A can be formulated for a set of n criteria. A=[aij]=[a11a12⋯a1na21a22⋯a2n⋮⋮⋱an1an2⋯ann] (3)

Where aij (i,j = 1,2,…,n) is defined as a judgment of the ith criterion over the jth one. Besides, the value of aij can be rated by linguistic terms, as presented in Table 2.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309667.t002 Table 2 Consistency index for fuzzy judgments.

Linguistic terms	Equally probabilistic (severe)	Weakly probabilistic (severe)	Fairly probabilistic (severe)	Very probabilistic (severe)	Absolutely probabilistic (severe)	
a BW	(1, 1, 1)	(2/3, 1, 3/2)	(3/2, 2, 5/2)	(5/2, 3, 7/2)	(7/2, 4, 9/2)	
CI	3	3.8	5.29	6.69	8.08	

In this paper, the application of BWM can be conducted via the following steps:

Step 1: Set up a set of criteria C = (c1,c2,…,cj,…,cn) for expert judgments.

Step 2: Select the best and worst criteria from n criteria, as mentioned in Step 1.

Step 3: Conduct fuzzy reference comparisons (FRCs) for the best criterion over all remaining criteria. Consequently, we obtain the fuzzy best vector (FBV):A˜B=(a˜B1,a˜B2,…,a˜Bj,…,a˜Bn). Where a˜Bj is PFC of the best criterion (cB) over the jth criterion (cj). Note that a˜BB=(1,1,1).

Step 4: Perform FRCs for all remaining criteria over the worst criterion. Consequently, we obtain the fuzzy worst vector (FWV):A˜W=(a˜1W,a˜2W,…,a˜jW,…,a˜nW). Where a˜jW is PFC of the jth criterion (cj) over the worst criterion (cW). Note that a˜WW=(1,1,1).

Step 5: Determine the optimal fuzzy weights (OFWs) of criteria W˜*=(w˜1*,w˜2*,…,w˜j*,…,w˜n*). We expect to find W˜* on the condition that for each fuzzy pair w˜B/w˜jandw˜j/w˜W, we have w˜B/w˜j=a˜Bjandw˜j/w˜W=a˜jW. Stated differently, we will obtain an optimal solution where the maximum absolute distance |w˜B/w˜j−a˜Bj|and|w˜j/w˜W−a˜jW| is minimized for all j. To accomplish that, we construct the following constrained optimization [52]: minmax(j){|w˜Bw˜j−a˜Bj|,|w˜jw˜W−a˜jW|}S.t:{∑j=1nR(w˜j)=1ljw≤mjw≤ujwljw≥0j=1,2,…,n (4)

Let ε˜=(lε,mε,uε), Model (4) can be transformed to Model (5): minε˜S.t:{∑j=1nR(w˜j)=1|w˜Bw˜j−a˜Bj|≤ε˜|w˜jw˜W−a˜jW|≤ε˜ljw≤mjw≤ujw,ljw≥0,j=1,2,…,n (5)

Suppose that ε˜*=(t*,t*,t*),t*≤lε, and let w˜B=(lBw,mBw,uBw), w˜j=(ljw,mjw,ujw),w˜W=(lWw,mWw,uWw),a˜Bj=(lBj,mBj,uBj), and a˜jW=(ljW,mjW,ujW), Model (5) can be transferred to Model (6): minε˜*S.t:{∑j=1nR(w˜j)=1|(lBw,mBw,uBw)(ljw,mjw,ujw)−(lBj,mBj,uBj)|≤(t*,t*,t*)|(ljw,mjw,ujw)(lWw,mWw,uWw)−(ljW,mjW,ujW)|≤(t*,t*,t*)ljw≤mjw≤ujw,ljw≥0,j=1,2,…,n (6)

Solving Model (6), we obtain OFWs W˜*=(w˜1*,w˜2*,…,w˜j*,…,w˜n*) and ε˜*=(t*,t*,t*).

Step 6: Check the consistency of experts’ judgment by the consistency ratio (CR): CR=ε˜CI×100% (7)

Where CI is the consistency index, whose values are shown in the last row of Table 2. It is argued that CR<10% is acceptably consistent [52, 53].

Step 7: Combine the individual OFWs. Call W˜*e=(w˜1*e,w˜2*e,…,w˜j*e,…,w˜n*e) be the OFWs rated by the eth expert, and e = (1,2,…,E) is a set of experts in the survey. Then, w˜j* can be combined as: wj*=∑e=1Ewj*eE,j=1,2,…,n. (8)

3.3 Continuous risk management matrix

Different from TRMM, CRMM enables decision-makers to assign continuous values to the probability and severity of RFs, resulting in a more detailed and precise assessment [54]. Additionally, employing continuous scales for these parameters allows CRMM to enhance the consistency of risk factor evaluation via eliminating the arbitrary categorization associated with discrete numbers [55].

In risk management, risk value (RV) can be computed by multiplying the probability that a risk occurs by its severity [9, 41]. In practice, RV is calculated to classify risks, allowing firms to allocate their limited resources to reduce the most impactful risks. By that idea, let pi and si be probability and severity of RFi (i = 1,2,…,n), respectively. Then, RV of RFi can be determined by Eq (9). From such risk values, we can attain a continuous risk management matrix of risk factors.

RVi=pi×si∑i=1npi×si×100% (9)

4. Empirical application

4.1 Hierarchical structure of risk factors for fast-ferry transportation

This paper aims to conduct the navigational risk evaluation of ferry transport by CRMM based on fuzzy BWM. Accordingly, the first is to set up the hierarchical structure of risk factors for ferry transportation. In doing so, the paper relies on the extensive literature review, as done in Section 2, and industrial experts’ consultations from the FO-VN case. As a result, the hierarchical structure of RFs of navigational safety for ferry transportation includes five dimensions with 20 RFs, as shown in Table 3.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309667.t003 Table 3 RFs’ hierarchical structure.

Layer 1: Dimensions	Layer 2: RFs	Code	Explanation	Sources	
Human factors (HF)	Crew fatigue	HF1	Fatigue is a physiological condition characterized by diminished cognitive or physical performance capability. It can be caused by factors such as sleep loss or excessive mental and physical activity. For crew members, fatigue can hinder their ability to operate a ship safely or carry out safety-related responsibilities.	Yuan, Wang [18], Xue, Papadimitriou [8]	
Crew unfamiliarity with vessel systems	HF2	Each vessel has peculiarities which the crew onboard must excel. Unfamiliarity with the ferry’s systems can cause navigational misjudgments, delays in response, and ship groundings	Mohammed, Benson [25], Hiremath, Pandey [26]	
Insufficient training for crew	HF3	Lack of crew training can increase the risk of navigation errors and accidents. For instance, insufficient knowledge of safety procedures, and communication systems can compromise the ability of the crew to operate a vessel effectively.	Uğurlu, Yıldırım [20], Hasanspahić, Frančić [21]	
Communication breakdown	HF4	A communication breakdown refers to a failure or interruption in the process of exchanging information among crew onboard, caused by misinterpretation, miscommunication, or even lack of communication. This risk factor can lead to navigational errors, delays in emergency responses, and coordination issues during routine operations and crisis situations.	Nguyen, Ngo [1], Wang, Liu [43]	
Navigational equipment (NE)	Malfunction of electronic navigation systems	NE1	Electronic navigation systems, such as GPS (Global Positioning System), radar, and Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems (ECDIS), can experience malfunctions or failures. If not promptly addressed, a failure in these systems can reduce the ferry’s ability to navigate accurately, thereby increasing the risk of collisions or grounding.	Hsu, Tai [7], Iperen [64]	
Outdated nautical charts	NE2	Outdated nautical charts often present seabed topography, new navigational hazards, and precise alterations to shipping lanes. Accordingly, relying on such incorrect information can cause some navigational errors, such as miscalculating distances, misjudging water depths, and misunderstanding the layout of the waterway.	Xue, Papadimitriou [8], Mohammed, Benson [25], Hiremath, Pandey [26]	
Poor visibility of navigational aids	NE3	Navigational aids (i.e., buoys, radio beacons, fog signals, and lightships) are used to provide "street" signs on the water for ships. This equipment assists FOs to navigate in the vast ocean where landmarks are not visible, thereby ensuring maritime safety.	Wang, Liu [27], Hiremath, Pandey [26]	
Lack of redundancy and back-up systems	NE4	Redundancy is extra components of a vessel, which is used in case of failure in other elements. Thence, this redundancy is crucial for maintaining the vessel’s ability to continue its operations, especially during emergency situations.	Wang and Chin [28], Mia, Uddin [29]	
Port navigation regulations (PR)	Non-compliance with COLREGs	PR1	COLREGs are a set of regulations developed by IMO to establish international standards for the safe navigation of ships and prevent collision at sea. Accordingly, non-compliance of these rules can result in an increase in the probability of collisions, and compromise the overall safety of ferry operations.	Başhan, Demirel [31], Ung [32], Arof and Nair [33]	
Inadequate implementation of local navigation rules	PR2	Besides international rules, navigators must adhere to local navigation rules, often in specific waterways of countries and territories. Hence, non-compliance with these rules can generate navigational errors, especially in congested or restricted areas and may cause hazards, such as collisions, grounding, stranding, and even legal actions.	Fan, Wang [34], Hiremath, Pandey [26]	
Insufficient training on navigational regulations	PR3	As mentioned above, following maritime rules and regulations ensure safe navigation and avoid collisions. Thence, insufficient training on these regulations is a leading cause of maritime accidents and injuries.	Baldauf and Hong [35], Hsu, Tai [7]	
Poor communication with maritime authorities	PR4	Effective communication with maritime authorities is essential for safe and efficient navigation operations, and ensuring compliance with regulations.
Therefore, poor communication with local authorities can cause severe problems in navigation safety. For instance, the vessel cannot be located near a place where rescue is possible without proper communication.	Başhan, Demirel [31], Ung [32], Arof and Nair [33]	
Vessel design (VD)	Inadequate stability and seakeeping characteristics	VD1	Stability and seakeeping characteristics are features of a vessel impacting its ability to remain at sea in all conditions and carry out its intended mission. These characteristics include strength, maneuverability, endurance, and the motions of the vessels. Thus, insufficient stability and seakeeping characteristics can lead to the risk of capsizing, especially in adverse weather conditions (i.e., lightning, thunderstorms, tornadoes), affecting passenger comfort and generating a safety hazard.	Ozturk and Cicek [36], Hsu, Tai [7]	
Poor visibility from the bridge	VD2	The bridge is one of the most important parts of a ship, where its navigation is carried out. So, inadequate visibility from the bridge can compromise the ability of the crew onboard to navigate the boat safely, increasing the probability of maritime accidents.	Yuan, Wang [18], Wang, Liu [43]	
Lack of redundancy in propulsion systems	VD3	Propulsion systems help propel ships through the water. Hence, when primary propulsion systems are damaged, a vessel without redundancy in propulsion systems may face challenges, such as power loss, and operation downtime.	Caris, Limbourg [65], Wood, Collier [40]	
Inadequate evacuation and emergency response features	VD4	Marine transport is one of the most dangerous industries; thus, evacuation and emergency response features are critical parts of vessel design to ensure the safety of vessels, passengers, and crew in the event of emergent situations. Therefore, insufficiency of these features in vessel design can reduce the ability to rescue and evacuate victims in marine accidents.	 Akyuz [39], Ung [41]	
External environment (EE)	Bad weathers	EE1	Bad weather (i.e., storms, high winds, heavy rain, and rough seas) can negatively impact ship navigation, causing abnormal maneuverability, wrong direction navigation, and cargo damage.	Sys, Van de Voorde [44], Wang, Liu [43]	
Strong tidal currents	EE2	Strong tidal currents and unpredictable water flow patterns are natural phenomena affecting the navigation safe of ferries, especially in coastal and narrow waterways. Additionally, they can make ferries challenging to navigate in the intended course.	Cui [42], Wang, Liu [43]	
Floating debris	EE3	Floating debris refers to objects floating below the surface of water bodies and is often challenging to see in the ocean. Some marine debris (i.e., abandoned and derelict ships) cause vessel damage and hazards to navigation.	Kulkarni, Goerlandt [45], Chang, Xu [46]	
Marine traffic congestion	EE4	Marine traffic congestion refers to the scenario in which multiple ships share the same water space. It is argued that a high density of vessels in congested waterways can increase the probability of collisions.	Xu, Ma [48], Wang, Liu [43]	

4.2 Data collection

To verify the proposed research model, this paper first selected the three biggest FOs in the South of Vietnam (hereafter the FO-VN case). Next, the current research asked each ferry operator to provide 10~12 officers and senior crew members to interview. More crucially, the risk evaluation in ferry transport is highly professional; thus, selected respondents must have enough knowledge of marine navigation. Then, we designed the expert questionnaire to capture experts’ perceptions of RFs’ probability and severity. From Table 3, the designed questionnaire includes five dimensions and twenty RFs. Finally, we interviewed respondents face-to-face and by phone (emails) and got 28 valid responses, and the background of which is shown in Table 4.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309667.t004 Table 4 Respondents’ background.

Features	Frequency	%	
Job titles	Master	3	10.71	
Operations Manager	3	10.71	
Deck Officer	6	21.43	
Catering Staff	7	25.00	
Marine Engineer	9	32.14	
Seniority (year)	5~10	11	39.29	
11~20	10	35.71	
Over 20	7	25.00	
Education	Undergraduate	21	75.00	
Postgraduate	7	25.00	
Age (year)	25~35	6	21.43	
36~46	13	46.43	
Over 46	9	32.14	
Safety license	Yes	28	100.00	
No	0	0.00	

Table 4 presents the demographic background of respondents. Marine engineers, catering staff, and deck officers constitute the largest job title category (78.57%). Meanwhile, most respondents (75%) have 5 to 20 years of seniority. Besides, 75% of respondents hold undergraduate degrees, and the age distribution is relatively balanced, with the largest group falling within the 36–46 years range. Most crucially, 100% of respondents have a safety license in marine navigation issued by the Vietnam Maritime Administration.

4.3 Probability and severity weight of RFs

As discussed above, the probability and severity weights of RFs are calculated by fuzzy BWM, as seen from Steps (1) ~ (7). Initially, the current paper determines the global weights of five main dimensions in Layer 1. Then, the local weights of RFs in Layer 2 corresponding to each dimension are computed. Finally, the global weights of RFs are figured out by multiplying the global weights of such five dimensions with the local weights of RFs. The result for the FO-VN case is shown in Table 5. It is evident that three RFs with higher probability weight include HF4 (8.99%), PR4 (8.43%), and EE4 (8.27%). Meanwhile, three RFs with higher severity weight comprise VD4 (15.59%), VD1 (11.98%), and PR3 (7.21%).

10.1371/journal.pone.0309667.t005 Table 5 RFs’ probability and severity weight.

Layer 1: Dimensions	Global weight of dimensions	Layer 2: RFs	Local weight of RFs	Global weight of RFs	
Probability	Severity	Probability	Severity	Probability	Severity	
Human factors (HF)	23.84	6.16	HF1	13.02	17.58	3.10	1.08	
HF2	26.57	15.69	6.33	0.97	
HF3	22.71	38.44	5.41	2.37	
HF4	37.71	28.29	8.99	1.74	
Navigational Equipment (NE)	15.59	13.51	NE1	36.88	25.33	5.75	3.42	
NE2	15.45	16.95	2.41	2.29	
NE3	24.85	24.86	3.88	3.36	
NE4	22.82	32.87	3.56	4.44	
Port Navigation Regulations (PR)	24.84	18.06	PR1	21.01	16.55	5.22	2.99	
PR2	18.64	17.74	4.63	3.20	
PR3	26.41	39.90	6.56	7.21	
PR4	33.94	25.81	8.43	4.66	
Vessel Design (VD)	14.83	42.40	VD1	18.07	28.26	2.68	11.98	
VD2	25.33	19.55	3.76	8.29	
VD3	31.26	15.42	4.63	6.54	
VD4	25.35	36.77	3.76	15.59	
External Environment (EE)	20.90	19.87	EE1	14.87	18.16	3.11	3.61	
EE2	21.52	35.25	4.50	7.00	
EE3	24.05	14.07	5.03	2.79	
EE4	39.56	32.53	8.27	6.46	

4.4 Continuous risk matrix

Based on the probability and severity weights of RFs, as computed in Section 4.3, applying Eq (9), the risk value of RFs is found and exhibited in the second-to-last column of Table 6. After that, RFs are divided into four categories. Moreover, this study utilizes the "ggRepel" package in Rstudio to visually represent CRMM. As shown in Fig 2, CRMM presents the probability and severity weights on the horizontal and vertical axis, respectively. Evidently, CRMM classifies RFs into four risk areas. In particular, the extreme-risk area includes three RFs, such as VD4 (12.43%), EE4 (11.34%), and PR3 (10.03%). The high-risk area consists of five RFs, for example, PR4 (8.34%), VD1 (6.81%), EE2 (6.68%), VD2 (6.60%), and VD3 (6.43%). In addition, eight RFs are located in the medium-risk area, while four RFs are situated in the low-risk zone. It has been posited that for the risk management process, FOs should prioritize the extreme-risk RFs in the context of limited resources [18, 45, 56].

10.1371/journal.pone.0309667.g002 Fig 2 The visualization of CRMM for the FO-VN case.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309667.t006 Table 6 RFs’ risk values.

RFs	Probability	Severity	RV (%)	Category	
VD4	3.76	15.59	12.43	Extreme
(E)	
EE4	8.27	6.46	11.34	
PR3	6.56	7.21	10.03	
PR4	8.43	4.66	8.34	High
(H)	
VD1	2.68	11.98	6.81	
EE2	4.50	7.00	6.68	
VD2	3.76	8.29	6.60	
VD3	4.63	6.54	6.43	
NE1	5.75	3.42	4.17	Medium
(M)	
NE4	3.56	4.44	3.35	
HF4	8.99	1.74	3.33	
PR1	5.22	2.99	3.31	
PR2	4.63	3.20	3.15	
EE3	5.03	2.79	2.98	
NE3	3.88	3.36	2.76	
HF3	5.41	2.37	2.72	
EE1	3.11	3.61	2.38	Low
(L)	
HF2	6.33	0.97	1.30	
NE2	2.41	2.29	1.17	
HF1	3.10	1.08	0.71	

4.5 Discussion

Three RFs in the FO-VN case, namely, inadequate evacuation and emergency response features (VD4), marine traffic congestion (EE4), and insufficient training on navigational regulations (PR3), are identified as having an extreme-risk level through CRMM. From risk management perspectives, FOs are advised to prioritize their attention to such RFs, particularly in the case of limited resources. From these empirical findings and a comprehensive literature review, the authors conducted post-interviews with professional experts from the survey, and some managerial recommendations to improve the safety of navigation for ferry transportation are suggested as follows:

It is argued that inadequate evacuation and emergency response features are risks associated with the ferry design [39, 41]. These features are designed to ensure the safety of passengers and crew members during emergencies and evacuations on ferry vessels [46]. Thus, inadequate emergency response features (i.e., firefighting systems and communication tools) may escalate the severity of incidents and compromise the safety of passenger and crew on board [57, 58]. According to the expert interviewed, all ferry crews must take part in regular emergency drills to improve their skills during the crisis. Furthermore, these drills should represent practical emergency scenarios in ferry navigation, such as fire, grounding, collision, etc., to ensure that they are familiar with evacuation processes. This suggestion is in line with Kim and Moon [56], and Kulkarni, Goerlandt [45]. In addition, ferries are also suggested to be equipped with modern life-saving equipment, such as home defibrillators, lifeboats, and inflatable buoyant apparatus for safety navigation.

Marine traffic congestion is arguably an extreme-risk factor in the FO-VN case that should be reduced to improve the navigation safety for ferry transport. According to Yuan, Wang [18], congested waterways hinder free movement and cause trouble in the safe maneuvering of ships, thus increasing the likelihood of collisions between ferries and other vessels. The interviewed experts reached a high consensus that to reduce congestion in marine traffic, FOs should use advanced technology such as Automatic Identification System (AIS), radar, and satellite tracking to monitor vessel movements in real-time. A Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural network model is also studied at Shanghai, Singapore and Ningbo ports for congestion and sequence prediction [59]. Another policy is to boost collaboration and communication between FOs and port operators (POs) to alleviate marine traffic congestion. Nonetheless, this policy can be possible if all parties (i.e., FOs and POs) have access to the exact source of the newest information. This suggestion is relatively consistent with Hsu, Tai [7], and Nguyen, Ngo [1].

Navigational regulations for ships are rules and guidelines established to ensure the safe and efficient navigation of vessels at sea [8, 60]. Accordingly, inadequate training for FOs and crew members in understanding and adhering to these regulations can create many risks for ferry navigation safety, such as unsafe maneuvers [35], misinterpretation of charts [20], and the increase in the probability of collision [32]. Based on empirical findings, interviewed experts suggest the following two policies to boost this issue. The first policy is to design courses including all critical aspects of maritime navigational regulations, such as COLREGs, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), the Pilotage Act, etc. After finishing these courses, ferry personnel can be certified and continuously updated on relevant navigation regulations. The second one is to assess crew members on the completion of their training to demonstrate that they can apply navigation regulations in real-world cases. This recommendation is in agreement with Xue, Papadimitriou [8] and Fan, Wang [34].

It is imperative to discuss the main advantages of the proposed methods. Unlike TRMM, CRMM allows decision-makers to assign continuous values to the probability and severity of RFs; thus, RFs are assessed more detailed and precise. Besides, by using continuous scales of the probability and severity of RFs, CRMM improves consistency in RFs’ evaluation thanks to avoiding the arbitrary categorization of risks into discrete numbers. Moreover, fuzzy BWM requires less PCs, thus minimizing the inconsistency that is often encountered in other methods, for instance AHP, ANP, and SAW. Additionally, the incorporation of fuzzy logic in BWM allows to handle uncertainty and subjectivity of DMs’ ratings. Thence, it would be said that fuzzy BWM is particularly useful in evaluation RFs in ferry transport.

To conclude, using CRMM, FOs are advised to prioritize their attention to the extreme-risk factors, particularly in resource-limited situations. Based on that, the experts in the empirical case suggest many policies for FOs to mitigate the identified the extreme-risk factors. These strategies encompass enhancing emergency response features, leveraging technology to manage marine traffic congestion, and prioritizing comprehensive training courses for crew members to ensure that they adhere to navigational regulations.

5. Conclusion

This paper aims to conduct a navigational risk evaluation of ferry transport by CRMM based on fuzzy BWM. Some theoretical and practical contributions can be addressed as follows:

First, from the literature review and ferry navigation’s feature, the current paper identifies five dimensions with twenty RFs for ferry navigation. By means of CRMM, RFs are divided into four zones corresponding to their risk values, including extreme-risk, high-risk, medium-risk, and low-risk areas. Thanks to that, DMs can make policies to allocate resources to improve the safety of ferry navigation. It is argued that under the circumstance of limited resources, FOs should prioritize to allocate the resources to RFs in the extreme-risk area. By contrast, resources being used for RFs in the low-risk area should be deployed elsewhere, preferably RFs in the extreme- and high-risk areas.

Second, the application of fuzzy BWM in calculating the probability and severity of RFs can provide a methodological reference to the MCDA research. Compared with the pairwise comparison-based tools (i.e., AHP, ANP, and SAW), BWM does not require a full pairwise comparison matrix [15]. Thus, it needs less data and produces more consistent results [52, 53]. Further, it is argued that judging the probability and severity of RFs is inherently uncertain and subjective. Therefore, integrating fuzzy theory into BWM allows a more realistic representation of uncertainty, vagueness, and imprecision. The proposed method could be extended to various real-life decision-making problems, such as bio-medical waste management [61], plastic waste management [62], renewable energy sources [63].

Third, as an empirical study, the paper surveys three major FOs in Vietnam to verify the proposed research model. Results identify three extreme-risk RFs, comprising inadequate evacuation and emergency response features (VD4), marine traffic congestion (EE4), and insufficient training on navigational regulations (PR3). In practice, these RFs should be given a high priority in resource allocation. Some suggested policies to improve these RFs include enhancing emergency response features, leveraging technology to manage marine traffic congestion, and prioritizing comprehensive training courses to ensure crew have advanced knowledge of maritime regulations.

The current research exists some research limitations, as follows. Initially, the traditional assumption of criteria independence used in BWM makes it unrealistic in many real-world cases. For instance, crew familiarity with vessel systems (HF2) and lack of crew training and competence (HF3) correlate with each other. Nonetheless, such a correlation is not considered in the study. Therefore, how to revise the weight vector determined by fuzzy BWM is an area of future research. Second, the operation of fuzzy BWM is based on optimization techniques. Accordingly, complex and high-dimensional problems, viz., many criteria and alternatives involved, may pose challenges to the adoption of fuzzy BWM. It is highly recommended that specialized software be developed to employ fuzzy BWM more practically and efficiently.

Supporting information

S1 File Surveyed data.

(ZIP)

The authors would like to thank colleagues for very thoughtful reviews and critical comments, which have led to significant improvements to the early versions of the manuscript.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309667.r001
Decision Letter 0
AYBAR Orhan Ozgur Academic Editor
© 2024 Orhan Ozgur AYBAR
2024
Orhan Ozgur AYBAR
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
30 Apr 2024

PONE-D-24-02990A navigational risk evaluation of ferry transport: Continuous risk management matrix based on fuzzy Best-Worst MethodPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hoang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 14 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Orhan Ozgur AYBAR, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Following comments should be addressed to be considered for publication in Plos ONE.

Referee 1

This paper evaluates the navigational risk of ferry transport by a continuous risk management matrix based on the fuzzy Best-Worst Method. I think the authors have written an interesting paper dealing with an important topic. The overall representation of this paper is technically sound. I have, however, a few comments and suggestions for them:

1. The abstract should be modified. It is therefore recommended that the abstract be carefully rewritten to effectively demonstrate the necessity, novelty, and contribution of the research, as well as highlight its major findings. Write the whole abstract in a narrative form rather than itemize.

2. I suggest summarizing in a table with challenges and proposed solutions by the different authors, their strengths and weaknesses. This will immediately make clear the new proposal's need and the evolution that it represents.

3. The motivation for this is not highlighted in the manuscript. The manuscript's value is hidden from the reader. It needs to be emphasized in a paragraph clearly.

4. The main contribution of the manuscript should be listed in bullets under the Introduction section.

5. Why triangular fuzzy best worst method is utilized? Give reasons.

6. It is imperative to compare the proposed method with the literature. The main advantage of the proposed method should be discussed comparatively with other existing solutions.

7. It is noteworthy that your approach your method could be extended to various real-life decision-making problems, such as the ‘bio-medical waste management, plastic waste management, renewable energy sources’, and more. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120082; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110516; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2024.111495;Include this in the future scope of the conclusion section with proper citation of relevant references.

Referee 2

1. The paper is of importance in terms of merging continuous risk matrix and Fuzzy BWM. But I wonder how the authors generate the Figure 2. I think more details needed to explain how they structured the x-and y-axis values. What is the continuous function here?

2. Going on from the end of comment 1, how they determine the four categories? Why four?

3. Why the authors prefer fuzzy version of BWM? Is there a special reason or not? Please explain in detail.

4. I think a flow chart is required to easily understand the integration between CRMM and fuzzy BWM. More theoretical information is needed for CRMM.

5. Authors provided a consistency computation in their method part but there is no output for this in the application. Please provide your results regarding consistency.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper evaluates the navigational risk of ferry transport by a continuous risk management matrix based on the fuzzy Best-Worst Method. I think the authors have written an interesting paper dealing with an important topic. The overall representation of this paper is technically sound. I have, however, a few comments and suggestions for them:

1. The abstract should be modified. It is therefore recommended that the abstract be carefully rewritten to effectively demonstrate the necessity, novelty, and contribution of the research, as well as highlight its major findings. Write the whole abstract in a narrative form rather than itemize.

2. I suggest summarizing in a table with challenges and proposed solutions by the different authors, their strengths and weaknesses. This will immediately make clear the new proposal's need and the evolution that it represents.

3. The motivation for this is not highlighted in the manuscript. The manuscript's value is hidden from the reader. It needs to be emphasized in a paragraph clearly.

4. The main contribution of the manuscript should be listed in bullets under the Introduction section.

5. Why triangular fuzzy best worst method is utilized? Give reasons.

6. It is imperative to compare the proposed method with the literature. The main advantage of the proposed method should be discussed comparatively with other existing solutions.

7. It is noteworthy that your approach your method could be extended to various real-life decision-making problems, such as the ‘bio-medical waste management, plastic waste management, renewable energy sources’, and more. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120082; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110516; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2024.111495;Include this in the future scope of the conclusion section with proper citation of relevant references.

Reviewer #2: 1. The paper is of importance in terms of merging continuous risk matrix and Fuzzy BWM. But I wonder how the authors generate the Figure 2. I think more details needed to explain how they structured the x-and y-axis values. What is the continuous function here?

2. Going on from the end of comment 1, how they determine the four categories? Why four?

3. Why the authors prefer fuzzy version of BWM? Is there a special reason or not? Please explain in detail.

4. I think a flow chart is required to easily understand the integration between CRMM and fuzzy BWM. More theoretical information is needed for CRMM.

5. Authors provided a consistency computation in their method part but there is no output for this in the application. Please provide your results regarding consistency.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Mijanur Rahaman Seikh

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309667.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
8 Jul 2024

Please seeing the attached file.

Attachment Submitted filename: 2. Responses.Long.PlosOne.pdf

10.1371/journal.pone.0309667.r003
Decision Letter 1
Gul Muhammet Academic Editor
© 2024 Muhammet Gul
2024
Muhammet Gul
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
16 Aug 2024

A navigational risk evaluation of ferry transport: Continuous risk management matrix based on fuzzy Best-Worst Method

PONE-D-24-02990R1

Dear Dr. Hoang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Muhammet Gul, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have checked the revised manuscript with track changes and the reply to the reviewers. The authors have necessary changes according to the reviewers comment and improve the manuscript to a great extent. However, some portions of the original manuscript file are unreadble maybe due to technical issues during compilation of files. Kindly, check this issue before publication.

Reviewer #2: Authors made a successful revision considering my and other reviewers' comments. Thus I support and recommend publication in PLOSONE.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Mijanur Rahaman Seikh

Reviewer #2: No

**********

10.1371/journal.pone.0309667.r004
Acceptance letter
Gul Muhammet Academic Editor
© 2024 Muhammet Gul
2024
Muhammet Gul
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
21 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-02990R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hoang,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Muhammet Gul

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Nguyen TQ , Ngo LTT , Huynh NT , Quoc TL , Hoang LV . Assessing port service quality: An application of the extension fuzzy AHP and importance-performance analysis. PloS one. 2022;17 (2 ):e0264590. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264590 35213649
2 Hsu W-KK , Huynh NT , Le Quoc T , Yu H-L . An assessment model of eco-efficiency for container terminals within a port. Economics of Transportation. 2024;39 :100359.
3 Bergek A , Bjørgum Ø , Hansen T , Hanson J , Steen M . Sustainability transitions in coastal shipping: The role of regime segmentation. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives. 2021;12 :100497.
4 Liu Y , Frangopol DM . Probabilistic risk, sustainability, and utility associated with ship grounding hazard. Ocean Engineering. 2018;154 :311–21.
5 Golden AS , Weisbrod RE . Trends, causal analysis, and recommendations from 14 years of ferry accidents. Journal of Public Transportation. 2016;19 (1 ):17–27.
6 Liu Q , Wang G . Complex waters of ship navigation safety risk coupling mechanism analysis. Journal of Wuhan University of Technology (Transportation Science & Engineering). 2014;38 (1 ):59–63.
7 Hsu W-KK , Tai H-H , Tan Huynh N , Chen J-WC . Assessing the investment environment in container terminals: A knowledge gap model. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment. 2022;236 (3 ):585–99.
8 Xue J , Papadimitriou E , Reniers G , Wu C , Jiang D , van Gelder P . A comprehensive statistical investigation framework for characteristics and causes analysis of ship accidents: A case study in the fluctuating backwater area of Three Gorges Reservoir region. Ocean Engineering. 2021;229 :108981.
9 Aven T. Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation. European Journal of Operational Research. 2016;253 (1 ):1–13.
10 Cox LA . What’s wrong with risk matrices? Risk Analysis: An International Journal. 2008;28 (2 ):497–512. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x 18419665
11 Ball DJ , Watt J . Further thoughts on the utility of risk matrices. Risk analysis. 2013;33 (11 ):2068–78. doi: 10.1111/risa.12057 23656539
12 Duijm NJ . Recommendations on the use and design of risk matrices. Safety science. 2015;76 :21–31.
13 Hsu W-K , Huynh NT . An Evaluation of Productive Efficiency for Container Terminals Affiliated to a Single Organisation. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP). 2023;57 (1 ):59–76.
14 Hsu W-K , Wei Y-C , Lee C-H , Hoang LV , Huynh NT , editors. A risk assessment model of work safety in container dry ports. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Maritime Engineering; 2023: Thomas Telford Ltd.
15 Rezaei J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega. 2015;53 :49–57.
16 Khan RU , Yin J , Mustafa FS , Wang S . Analyzing human factor involvement in sustainable hazardous cargo port operations. Ocean Engineering. 2022;250 :111028.
17 Bowen C , Fidgeon P , Page SJ . Maritime tourism and terrorism: customer perceptions of the potential terrorist threat to cruise shipping. Current Issues in Tourism. 2014;17 (7 ):610–39.
18 Yuan P , Wang P , Zhao Y . Innovative method for ship navigation safety risk response in landslide-induced wave. Advances in civil engineering. 2021;2021 .
19 Aziz A , Ahmed S , Khan F , Stack C , Lind A . Operational risk assessment model for marine vessels. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2019;185 :348–61.
20 Uğurlu Ö , Yıldırım U , Başar E . Analysis of grounding accidents caused by human error. Journal of Marine Science and Technology. 2015;23 (5 ):19.
21 Hasanspahić N , Frančić V , Rudan I , Maglić L . Analysis of Navigation Safety Regarding Tankers in Narrow Waterways. Pomorski zbornik. 2018;55 (1 ):201–17.
22 Jon MH , Kim YP , Choe U . Determination of a safety criterion via risk assessment of marine accidents based on a Markov model with five states and MCMC simulation and on three risk factors. Ocean Engineering. 2021;236 :109000.
23 Amro AW , Gkioulos V , Katsikas S , editors. Connect and protect: requirements for maritime autonomous surface ship in urban passenger transportation. Computer Security ESORICS 2019 International Workshops, CyberICPS, SECPRE, SPOSE, and ADIoT, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, September 26–27, 2019 Revised Selected Papers; 2020: Springer.
24 Pan Y , Hildre HP . Holistic human safety in the design of marine operations safety. Ocean Engineering. 2018;151 :378–89.
25 Mohammed EA , Benson S , Hirdaris S , Dow R . Design safety margin of a 10,000 TEU container ship through ultimate hull girder load combination analysis. Marine Structures. 2016;46 :78–101.
26 Hiremath AM , Pandey SK , Asolekar SR . Development of ship-specific recycling plan to improve health safety and environment in ship recycling yards. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016;116 :279–98.
27 Wang L , Liu Q , Dong S , Soares CG . Effectiveness assessment of ship navigation safety countermeasures using fuzzy cognitive maps. Safety science. 2019;117 :352–64.
28 Wang Y , Chin H-C . An empirically-calibrated ship domain as a safety criterion for navigation in confined waters. The journal of navigation. 2016;69 (2 ):257–76.
29 Mia MJ , Uddin MI , Awal ZI , Abdullah A . An era of inland water transport accidents and casualties: the case of a low-income country. Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping. 2021;5 (2 ):32–9.
30 Wang H , Liu Z , Wang X , Graham T , Wang J . An analysis of factors affecting the severity of marine accidents. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2021;210 :107513.
31 Başhan V , Demirel H , Gul M . An FMEA-based TOPSIS approach under single valued neutrosophic sets for maritime risk evaluation: the case of ship navigation safety. Soft Computing. 2020;24 (24 ):18749–64.
32 Ung S-T . Human error assessment of oil tanker grounding. Safety science. 2018;104 :16–28.
33 Arof AM , Nair R . The identification of key success factors for interstate Ro-Ro short sea shipping in Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines: a Delphi approach. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics. 2017;9 (3 ):261–79.
34 Fan L , Wang M , Yin J . The impacts of risk level based on PSC inspection deficiencies on ship accident consequences. Research in Transportation Business & Management. 2019;33 :100464.
35 Baldauf M , Hong S-B . Improving and Assessing the Impact of e-Navigation applications. International Journal of e-Navigation and Maritime Economy. 2016;4 :1–12.
36 Ozturk U , Cicek K . Individual collision risk assessment in ship navigation: A systematic literature review. Ocean Engineering. 2019;180 :130–43.
37 Solomon B , Otoo E , Boateng A , Koomson DA . Inland waterway transportation (IWT) in Ghana: A case study of Volta Lake transport. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology. 2021;10 (1 ):20–33.
38 Howe CW , Carroll JL , Hurter J , Leininger WJ , Ramsey SG , Schwartz NL , et al . Inland waterway transportation: studies in public and private management and investment decisions: Routledge; 2016.
39 Akyuz E. A marine accident analysing model to evaluate potential operational causes in cargo ships. Safety science. 2017;92 :17–25.
40 Wood MD , Collier ZA , Bridges TS , Russo EJ Jr . Mental models of navigation safety to inform risk management decisions: case study on the Houston ship channel. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering. 2018;4 (3 ):05018001.
41 Ung S-T . Navigation Risk estimation using a modified Bayesian Network modeling-a case study in Taiwan. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2021;213 :107777.
42 Cui H. Optimization of Preventive Maintenance Cycle of Ship Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Based on MRO System. Journal of Coastal Research. 2019;93 (SI ):953–9.
43 Wang X , Liu Z , Wang J , Loughney S , Zhao Z , Cao L . Passengers’ safety awareness and perception of wayfinding tools in a Ro-Ro passenger ship during an emergency evacuation. Safety science. 2021;137 :105189.
44 Sys C , Van de Voorde E , Vanelslander T , van Hassel E . Pathways for a sustainable future inland water transport: A case study for the European inland navigation sector. Case Studies on Transport Policy. 2020;8 (3 ):686–99.
45 Kulkarni K , Goerlandt F , Li J , Banda OV , Kujala P . Preventing shipping accidents: Past, present, and future of waterway risk management with Baltic Sea focus. Safety science. 2020;129 :104798.
46 Chang C-H , Xu J , Song D-P . Risk analysis for container shipping: from a logistics perspective. The International Journal of Logistics Management. 2015.
47 Abbassi R , Khan F , Khakzad N , Veitch B , Ehlers S . Risk analysis of offshore transportation accident in arctic waters. International Journal of Maritime Engineering. 2017;159 (A3 ).
48 Xu S , Ma M , Yin K , Tang S . Risk evaluation system of navigation security based on coupled wind and wave model: a case of study of Qiongzhou strait. IET Intelligent Transport Systems. 2020;14 (10 ):1311–8.
49 Ramík J , Korviny P . Measuring inconsistency of pair-wise comparison matrix with fuzzy elements. Int J Appl Oper Res. 2013;10 (2 ):100–8.
50 Buckley JJ . Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy sets and systems. 1985;17 (3 ):233–47.
51 Tsai H-C , Hsiao S-W . Evaluation of alternatives for product customization using fuzzy logic. Information Sciences. 2004;158 :233–62.
52 Guo S , Zhao H . Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Knowledge-Based Systems. 2017;121 :23–31.
53 Xu Y , Zhu X , Wen X , Herrera-Viedma E . Fuzzy best-worst method and its application in initial water rights allocation. Applied Soft Computing. 2021;101 :107007.
54 Hsu W-K , Huang S-H , Huynh NT , Huang K-H . An evaluation model of sustainable efficiency for container terminals. Sustainable Development. 2023;1 (1 ):1–18.
55 Hsu W-KK , Huang S-HS , Huynh NT . An assessment of operating efficiency for container terminals in a port–An empirical study in Kaohsiung Port using Data Envelopment Analysis. Research in Transportation Business & Management. 2023;46 :100823.
56 Kim T-G , Moon B-S . Study on Estimating Economic Risk Cost of Aids to Navigation Accident in Busan Port, Korea using Contingent Valuation Method. Journal of Navigation and Port Research. 2018;42 (6 ):478–85.
57 Raj PK , Turner CK . Hazardous Materials Transportation in Tank Cars: Analysis of Risks, Part I. United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Railroad Administration …; 1993.
58 Hsu W-K , Huynh NT . Container terminals’ efficiency with the unexpected output: a revised SBM approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2023;30 (13 ):37845–58. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-24890-w 36575260
59 Peng W , Bai X , Yang D , Yuen KF , Wu J . A deep learning approach for port congestion estimation and prediction. Maritime Policy & Management. 2023;50 (7 ):835–60.
60 K Hsu W-K , S Huang S-H , Tan Huynh N . An evaluation model for foreign direct investment performance of free trade port zones. Promet-Traffic&Transportation. 2021;33 (6 ):859–70.
61 Seikh MR , Mandal U . Interval-valued Fermatean fuzzy Dombi aggregation operators and SWARA based PROMETHEE II method to bio-medical waste management. Expert Systems with Applications. 2023;226 :120082.
62 Mandal U , Seikh MR . Interval-valued spherical fuzzy MABAC method based on Dombi aggregation operators with unknown attribute weights to select plastic waste management process. Applied Soft Computing. 2023;145 :110516.
63 Seikh MR , Chatterjee P . Determination of best renewable energy sources in India using SWARA-ARAS in confidence level based interval-valued Fermatean fuzzy environment. Applied Soft Computing. 2024;155 :111495.
64 Iperen W. Classifying ship encounters to monitor traffic safety on the North Sea from AIS data. TransNav: International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation. 2015;9 (1 ).
65 Caris A , Limbourg S , Macharis C , Van Lier T , Cools M . Integration of inland waterway transport in the intermodal supply chain: a taxonomy of research challenges. Journal of Transport Geography. 2014;41 :126–36.
