Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Security Incident Cycle of Ports

  • Policy Perspective
  • Published:
Maritime Economics & Logistics Aims and scope

Abstract

The security incident cycle of ports consists of four phases: prevention, detection, response and recovery. There have been significant improvements in securing (prevention and detection) ports since the events of September 11, 2001, but little investigation of the response to and recover from a security incident once it has occurred. This paper provides a study of the security incident cycle of a port by investigating how ports and governments have addressed prevention and detection of and response to and recovery from port security incidents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a discussion of ocean container transportation, see Chadwin et al (1990) and Talley (2000).

  2. The port accidents are found in the Major Hazard Incident Data Service (MHIDAS), developed and managed by the Safety and Reliability Directorate as a representative of the Major Hazard Assessment Unit of the UK Health and Safety Executive. This database was created in 1980 and is updated periodically; it also includes accidents that occurred prior to 1980.

  3. On March 1, 2003 the Coast Guard became a component of the newly formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

  4. A seamen's rights group has requested that the DHS permit internationally-acceptable merchant mariner identification cards as a substitute for a D-1 visa, so more mariners can take shore leave at US ports.

  5. In Israel's Port of Ashdod, Palestinian bombers were smuggled into the port in a shipping container. An inspection of the container by security guards at the Gaza border failed to detect the false panel concealing the bombers.

  6. The effectiveness of detectors in detecting biological, chemical, nuclear and explosive terrorist devices may be investigated via mock threat training exercises.

References

  • Arora, A, Hall, D, Pinto, A, Ramsey, D and Telang, R . 2004: Measuring the Risk-Based Value of IT Security Solutions. IEEE IT Professional 6: 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banomyong, R . 2005: The Impact of Port and Trade Security Initiatives on Maritime Supply-Chain Management. Maritime Policy and Management 32: 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beadle, A . 2004: Coast Guard Faulted on Port Security Review. Journal of Commerce October 1: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichou, K . 2004: The ISPS Code and the Cost of Port Compliance: An Initial Logistics and Supply Chain Framework for Port Security Assessment and Management. Maritime Economics and Logistics 6: 322–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carafano, JJ and Kochems, A . 2005: Making the Sea Safer: A National Agenda for Maritime Security and Counterterrorism. The Heritage Foundation: Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chadwin, M, Pope, J and Talley, WK . 1990: Ocean Container Transportation: An Operational Perspective. Taylor and Francis: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chopra, A . 2005: ISPS Code: Is the World Safer Today? Marine Log 110: 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christou, MD . 1999: Analysis and Control of Major Accidents from the Intermediate Temporary Storage of Dangerous Substances in Marshalling Yards and Port Areas. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 12: 109–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clovis, M . 1998: Design of Anchor Pile for Ship Mooring Facilities. Ports – Proceedings 2: 890–896.

    Google Scholar 

  • Code of Federal Regulations 33, Sub-chapter H, Part 101, 105.

  • Cooperman, S . 2004: Tracking Cargo. Security 41: 20–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darbra, R-M and Casal, J . 2004: Historical Analysis of Accidents in Seaports. Safety Science 42: 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirci, E . 2003: Simulation Modelling and Analysis of a Port Investment. Simulation 79: 94–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durstenfeld, B, Fuhr, P, Haag, W, Hsi, P and Ng, J . 2003: Cargo Container Security. Occupational Health and Safety 72: 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, K . 1998: Forecasting Improved Safety and Cost-Savings. Dock and Harbour Authority 79: 88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastaugh, P . 1999: Tracking Technology Brings Benefits to Harbour Operators. Dredging and Port Construction 26: 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, SD and Nadeau, J . 2003: A Coastal Perspective on Security. Journal of Hazardous Materials 104: 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ervin, CK . 2004: Report Cites Port Security Gaps. Journal of Commerce October 14: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fields, G . 2004: World Customs Body Urges Strict, Uniform Security. Wall Street Journal July 2: A4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flory, JF, Banfield, SP and Ractliffe, A . 1998: Computer Mooring Load Analysis to Improve Port Operations and Safety. Ports – Proceedings 2: 840–849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortner, B . 2002: Electronic Seals Track Containers to Improve Port Security. Civil Engineering 72: 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Accounting Office. 2004: Port Security: Better Planning Needed to Develop and Operate Maritime Worker Identification Card Program. US Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C.

  • Ghys, R . 1988: Vital Link in the Chain. Hazardous Cargo Bulletin 9: 51 and 53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrald, JR, Stephens, HW and vanDorp, JR . 2004: A Framework for Sustainable Port Security. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 1: 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, L . 1994: Just Say Yes to Workplace Safety. Transportation and Distribution 35: 32–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keane, AG . 2005: Applauding C-TPAT's Reach. Traffic World April 25: 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, JW . 1998: Harbor Tranquility Analysis for Cheonha Harbor, Korea. Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 3: 643–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knott, M, Wood, D and Bonyun, D . 1985: Risk Analysis for Ship-Bridge Collisions. Coastal Zone: Proceedings of the Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management 2: 1828–1847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubo, M, Mizui, S and Inonue, K . 2000: Safety Evaluation of Ship Entering a Harbor Under Severe Wave Conditions. Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 4: 330–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leathrum, J, Mielke, R, Mazumdar, S, Mathew, R, Manepalli, Y, Pillai, V, Malladi, R and Jones, J . 2004: A Simulation Architecture to Support Intratheater Sealift Operations. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 39: 817–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledford, G, Schneider, G and Mock, D . 1995: Cruise Passenger Loading Bridges at Florida Ports. Ports – Proceedings 1: 173–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lissauer, I and Gaines, R . 1989: Ports and Waterways Management Information System. Coastal Zone: Proceedings of the Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management 5: 4065–4074.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, M and Grigalunas, TA . 2003: A Spatial-Economic Multimodal Transportation Simulation Model for US Coastal Container Ports. Maritime Economics and Logistics 5: 158–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makrinos, ST . 2004: United States Port Security in the War Terrorism. Sea Technology 45: 33–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maritime and Port Security Summit. 2004: Roundtable discussion at the. Maritime & Port Security Summit, George Washington University: Washington, D.C.

  • McBride, M . 1998: Safety Assessment for Ships Manoeuvring in Ports. Dock and Harbour Authority 79: 142–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, L and O'Sullivan, R . 2004: Integrated Harbor Security System Enhances Port Protection. Sea Technology 45: 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee, S and Vann, R . 1984: Determining Channel Design Requirements for Norfolk Harbour and Channels Deepening Project. Dock and Harbour Authority 65: 54–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meine, J . 1998a: Automated Vessel Traffic Management. Dock and Harbour Authority 78: 247–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meine, J . 1998b: VTS and the Role of Information Technology. Dock and Harbour Authority 79: 83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizui, S, Kubo, M, Sasa, K and Nagase, S . 2003: Wave Forecast at Harbor Entrance to Support Entering Ships Under Rough Weather. Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 13: 2050–2057.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagle, K . 2005: Nation's Ports Concerned About Security, Harbor Dredging Funding Shortfalls in Fy'06 Budget. The Propeller Club Quarterly Spring: 13–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, W . 2004: Reducing the Risk of Terror Events at Seaports. Review of Policy Research 21: 329–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, T . 2004: Maritime Homeland Security for Ports and Commercial Operations. Sea Technology 45: 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronza, A, Felez, S, Darbra, RM, Carol, S, Vilchez, JA and Casal, J . 2003: Predicting the Frequency of Accidents in Port Areas by Developing Event Trees from Historial Analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16: 551–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savenije, R . 1997: Admittance Policy Deep Draught Vessels and Safety. Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 4: 289–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savenije, R . 1998: Safety Criteria for Approach Channels. Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 4: 484–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelley, J . 2003: Terrorism on the High Seas: A Stark Reality. Marine Log 108: 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sriskandarajah, T and Wilkins, R . 2002: Assessment of Anchor Dragging on Gas Pipelines. Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 12: 24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staff. 2003: OECD Guiding Principles for Chemical Accident Prevention, Preparedness and Response: Guidance for Industry (Including Management and Labour), Public Authorities, Communities, and Other Stakeholders. OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications: Paris.

  • Staff. 2004a: Buoy Transmitters to Extend US Port Security. Journal of Commerce December 30: 1.

  • Staff. 2004b: Ports: Does Compliant Mean Secure? Marine Log 109: 12–14.

  • Talley, WK . 2000: Ocean Container Shipping: Impacts of a Technological Improvement. Journal of Economic Issues 34: 933–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townley, J . 1989: Vessel Navigation Simulation in Ports and Harbors Development – An Update. Coastal Zone: Proceedings of the Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management 5: 4481–4489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trbojevic, VM . 1998: The Use of Risk Assessment to Improve Safety Management Systems in Ports. Dock and Harbour Authority 79: 137–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trunick, PA . 2004: Keeping the Ports Safe. Logistics Today 45: 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Maritime Administration. 2002: Report of the United States Mobile Training Team: Regional Course on Port Security for Caribbean Countries. US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC.

  • Ueda, S, Hirano, T, Shiraishi, S and Yamamoto, S . 2002: Statistical Design of Fender for Berthing Ship. Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 12: 545–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ueda, S, Umemura, R, Shiraishi, S, Yamamoto, S, Akakura, Y and Yamase, S . 2001: Statistical Design of Fenders for Berthing Ship. Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 4: 583–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V and Wanagas, J . 1995: Integrated Port and Vessel Traffic Management Systems. Ports– Proceedings 1: 303–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yip, TL, Zhang, DH and Chwang, AT . 2002: Environmental and Safety Considerations for Design of a Perforated Seawall. Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference 2: 758–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, W . 1995: High-Technology in Port and Vessel Operations. Ports – Proceedings 1: 311–322.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant from the Summer Experience Enhancing Collaborative Research Program, Old Dominion University Office of Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Assistant Professor, Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, College of Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, 23529, Virginia, UK

    C Ariel Pinto

  2. Professor of Economics, Executive Director, Maritime Institute, College of Business and Public Administration, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, 23529, Virginia, UK

    Wayne K Talley

Authors
  1. C Ariel Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wayne K Talley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Policy Perspectives Often, MEL includes a special section under the heading ‘Policy Perspectives’. Papers here, often solicited ones, emphasise strategic policy implications rather than scientific rigour in a strict sense. Papers in Policy Perspectives are not subject to peer review; this results in speedier publication. Papers submitted to MEL are submitted for both sections at the discretion of the Editors. Authors not wishing to have their papers considered for Policy Perspectives should state this in the Cover Letter.

Appendix

Appendix

EXAMPLES OF CAUSES OF PORT ACCIDENTS AND THEIR MITIGATION

  1. 1

    Rough weather waves at a port's harbor entrance affect a ship's maneuvering (Mizui et al, 2003 and Kubo et al, 2000). Perforated seawalls can be used to calm down turbulent waves in port harbors (Yip et al, 2002). Harbor tranquility analysis can be performed for developing a counter-plan for reducing the average height of a wave (Kim, 1998).

  2. 2

    Berths that are inadequate for sustaining ships' berthing energy (Ueda et al, 2001, 2002). Fendering devices (eg rubber fenders) may be installed at berths to absorb the berthing energy of a ship and to reduce its berthing impact on the berth.

  3. 3

    Pipelines in harbor waters that are susceptible to damage from ships dragging their anchor (Sriskandarajah and Wilkins, 2002).

  4. 4

    Ship collisions. Approaches for reducing the risks of ship collisions in port include: (a) intelligent radio data networks that relay the GPS positions of ships to a central display (Eastaugh, 1999); (b) Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) systems that are integrated information networks, enabling port authorities to exercise supervision of ships and their cargoes (Meine, 1998a, 1998b; Venkatesh and Wanagas, 1995); (c) real-time navigation simulation to enable port designers and engineers to evaluate proposed changes in ship navigation channels and maneuvering areas in ports (McBride, 1998; Townley, 1989; McGee and Vann, 1984); (d) an admittance policy for deep-draught vessels in a port (Savenije, 1997); (e) advanced navigation and information technologies to improve the operations safety of ports in conjunction with measures to improve human performance, piloting practices, pilotage administration and waterways management (Young, 1995); (f) an automated information system to provide rapid access to information required for emergency response and aids to navigation management (Lissauer and Gaines, 1989); and (g) a risk analysis for ship-bridge collisions (Knott et al, 1985).

  5. 5

    Movement of hazardous materials. A formal safety assessment may be used to evaluate the risks in the movement of hazardous materials (Trbojevic, 1998). A policy should be developed for advising the loading, packing and labeling of hazardous cargo (Ghys, 1988). General guidance rules for preventing the spillage of hazardous materials should be developed (Staff, 2003).

  6. 6

    Tidal-bound ships. A probabilistic admittance policy for tidal-bound vessels may be used to estimate the probability of a ship touching the channel bottom (Savenije, 1998).

  7. 7

    Weather events. Weather continues to have a major effect on the safety of ships in ports. Improvements in weather forecasting can have significant effects on reducing weather-related port accidents (Dutton, 1998).

  8. 8

    Structural failure in the anchorage system of ships. Such a failure can result in major damage to the ship if it makes contact with a fixed structure or another vessel in port before it is brought under control. Most failures occur at either the connection of the anchor chain to an anchor pile or with the failure of the pile itself (Clovis, 1998).

  9. 9

    A ship breaks away from its mooring. A computer mooring analysis of a ship moored alongside a pier can be used to demonstrate how the characteristics, qualities and arrangements of mooring lines can affect the ship's mooring-line tensions experienced at the pier (Flory et al, 1998).

  10. 10

    Unsafe passenger ship loading bridges. Design parameters for selecting a loading bridge for a specific ship include ship portal heights and longitudinal positions, tide and ship load line variation, ship movements and ramp slopes (Ledford et al, 1995).

  11. 11

    Drug and alcohol abuse by port workers. This abuse can be addressed with drug and alcohol testing programs at ports (Harrington, 1994).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pinto, C., Talley, W. The Security Incident Cycle of Ports. Marit Econ Logist 8, 267–286 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100159

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100159

Keywords

Search

Navigation