臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

　　現今，海上運輸貨物的需求急劇增加，船舶運輸的貨物量甚大，約佔全球海上貿易量的 80%（IMO，2021），也意旨航運業在人類生活中扮演著越來越重要的角色。
　　全球化和經濟統合，導致大型船舶的增加。透過船舶裝載數千個貨櫃，航運公司可以利用規模經濟，增加船舶運力並賺取更多利潤。然而，由於風險因素，使用大型船舶仍然被認為是一種冒險的選擇。
　　本研究使用李克特五點量表，評估風險因素。藉由專家學者訪談及相關文獻探討，將風險因素分為「員工、設施、環境、管理者和溝通」四大構面及其16項子因素。透過將李克特五點尺度量表和層級分析法相互結合，研究發現船舶大型化所致風險與研擬風險控制策略。
　　研究結果， 組織管理者的安全意識不足(M1)、運營團隊與員工之間聯繫和溝通不暢(M3)及營運操作前程序(M4) 是三個主要的風險因素，而影響船舶大型化對港口所致較危害之風險為 使用未經認證的機器和搬運設備(F2)、極端天氣：強風、颶風、強浪與高溫(E2)、噪音汙染(E3) 和外來物種造成的負面影響( E4) 。

Nowadays, shipping is definitely a noticeable issue with more and more people concerning about it. The demand for transport goods by sea increasing dramatically in recent years and the volume of cargo transported by ships is enormous, with about 80% of the volume of global trade by sea (IMO, 2021). The shipping industry increasingly plays an important role in human life.
Globalization and Economic Integration become more and more popular, which lead to the increase of mega-sized ships. By using thousand TEUs ships, shipping lines can take advantage of Economic scale, increase ship’s capacity and earn more profits as well. However, taking advantage of mega-sized ships is still considered a risky choice due to risk factors.
In order to collect and evaluate those factors from expert interview, using the Five-Point Likert Scale is extremely necessary. In the specific survey, the risk factors have been divided into four main groups, including “Staff, Facility, Environment, Manager and Communication”. There are 16 sub-categories in the second layer, that will be scored from 1 to 5 in the Likert Scales. Following that, a depth interview is going to do which can help the study achieve the reliability and validity criteria. Therefore, by combining a Five points Likert Scale and AHP analysis, the research can figure out which factors are the most serious culprit and which solution is the most suitable risk-controlled strategy.
As a result, Five-point Likert Scale and Risk Matrix group risk factors into three levels including non-risks in high-risk area, four factors in medium-risk area and 12 risk factors in low-risk area. On the other hand, with a pair-wire comparison for each factor, AHP analysis points out the weights and ranking for every single sub-category in the second layer. In which, M1, M3, M4 are three most frequent and severe risk factors while the least impact risk group factor consists of four elements F2, E2, E3 and E4.

ABSTRACT i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. The motivation for the study 1
1.2. The emergency of the mega-ship in the next decades 3
1.3. Research object 11
1.4. The necessity of the research 13
1.5. Research Scope 14
1.6. Research Structure 16
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 19
2.1. Overview of using Mega sized ships tendency 19
2.2. Overview of Port structure, Procedure, Port Handling facilities 26
2.3. Risk management 28
2.4. Risk Assessment in Marine Transportation 41
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 44
3.1. Research Framework 44
3.2. The assessment criteria 45
3.3. Five-point Likert Scale 45
3.4. AHP analysis 47
3.5. Questionnaire design 50
CHAPTER 4. Emprical ANALYSIS RESULTS 55
4.1. Five-point Likert Scales Results 55
4.2. Risk Matrix Model 62
4.3. Risk Matrix Management 64
4.4. AHP analysis 65
4.5. Discussion 72
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION 74
5.1. Conclusion 74
5.2. Limitations and Future Research 74
5.3. Suggestions for Shipping operators 74
5.4. Suggestions for Port operators 75
REFERENCES 77

C. Guedes Soares, A. T., 2001. Risk assessment in maritime transportation. Elsevier- Reliability Engineering and System Safety , pp. 299- 309.
C. Kandemir, M., 2020. A human reliability assessment of marine auxiliary machinert maintenance operations under ship PMS and maintenance 4.0 concepts. SpringerLink, Volume 22, pp. 473-487.
Chien-Chang Chou, K.-W. Y., January 2013. Application of a New Hybrid Fuzzy AHP Model to the Location Choice. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, pp. Volume 2013, Article ID 592138, 12 pages.
Chipman, J. S., January 2008. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. s.l.:s.n.
Chyung, S. Y., Roberts, K., Swanson, I., & Hankinson, A. J. P. I. (2017). Evidence‐based survey design: The use of a midpoint on the Likert scale. 56(10), 15-23.
Constantinos I.Chlomousdis, P. A. a. P. L., 2012. An Analysis of Formal Risk Assessments for Safety and Security in Ports: Empirical Evidence from Container Terminal in Greece. Journal of Shipping and Ocean Engineering, Volume 2, pp. 45-54.
Datagroup, E., 2020. Paperboard Containers World Summary: 2020 Economic Crisis Impact on Revenues & Financials by Country. s.l.:Independently Published, 2020.
Davies, J., 1983. An Analysis of Cost and Supply Conditions in the Liner Shipping Industry. The Journal of Industrial Economics, Volume 31, pp. 417-435.
Eileen Abt, J. V. J. I. L. L. Z. T. A., 2010. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Wiley , 30(7), pp. 1028-1036.
H. N. Psaraftis, P. C. N. D. G. P. N. V., September 1998. The Human Element as a factor in Marine accidents. St. Malo, France, IMLA-10 Conference.
Habara, K., 2013. The establishment of the Asian maritime safety and security organization. Journal of Maritime Researches, pp. 14-29.
Huang, S.-H. S. &. T. W.-J. &. H. W.-K. K., 2016. An assessment of knowledge gap in service quality for air freight carriers. Transport Policy, Elsevier, pp. 87-94.
Huang, S.-H. S. T., Wen-Jui & Hsu, Wen-Kai K.,. (2016). An assessment of knowledge gap in service quality for air freight carriers. Transport Policy, Elsevier, 87-94.
Hyuk Soo Cho, J. S. L. H. C. M., September 2018. Maritime Risk in Seaport Operation: A Cross-Country Empirical Analysis with Theoretical Foundations. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, pp. 240-247.
J.R.W. Merrick, R. D., Risk Analysis, 26 (1) (2006). Speaking the truth in maritime risk assessment. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, pp. 223-237.
Jason R. W. Merrick, R. v. D., 2006 . Speaking the Truth in Maritime Risk Assessment. Risk Analysis,, pp. Vol. 26, No. 1.
Jason R. W. Merrick, R. V. D., 23th December 2005. Speaking the Truth in Maritime Risk Assessment. Risk Management.
Kaneko, F., June 2002. Methods for probabilistic safety assessments of ships. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, pp. 1-16.
Kuo-Chung Shang, W.-J. T., 2020. A Risk Analysis of stevedoring operation in seaport container terminals. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 18(2).
L. Sislian, A. J. P. C., 2016. A literature review on port sustainability and ocean's carrier. Research in Transportation Business & Management.
L.Pallis, P., 2017. Port Risk Management on Container Terminals. Transportation Research Procedia, Volume 25, pp. 4411-4421.
Lazim Abdullah, L. N., 2014. A new type-2 fuzzy set of linguistic variables for the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Elsevier, pp. Pages 3297-3305.
OECD. (2021). Impacts of alliance ship. International Transport Forum.
Photis M.Panayides, R. W., 2011. Strategic alliances in container liner shipping. ScienceDirect, pp. Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 25-38.
R.M. Darbra, J. C., 2004. Historical analysis of accidents in seaports. Safety Science, pp. 85-98.
Research, D. M., 2019. Ship Operating Costs Annual Review and Forecast, s.l.: Drewry Maritime Research.
Ricardo, D., 1772-1823. Theory of Comparative advantage). s.l., s.n.
Sirimanne, S. N., Hoffman, J., Juan, W., Asariotis, R., Assaf, M., Ayala, G., Premti, A. (2019). Review of maritime transport 2019. Paper presented at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva, Switzerland.
Tseng, W.-J., Ding, J.-F., & Li, M.-H., Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment. (2015). Risk management of cargo damage in export operations of ocean freight forwarders in Taiwan. 229(3), 232-247.
UNCTAD. (2021). Review of maritime transport 2021. Retrieved from Geneva, Switzerland:
Wen-Jui Tseng, J.-F. D., Min-Hua Li. (2013). Risk management of cargo damage in export operations of Ocean Freight in Taiwan. Institution of Mechanical Engineers
Yip, T., 2007. Port traffic risks: A study of accidents in Hong Kong waters. Transportation Research, Part E, pp. 921-931.