Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The nature of maritime security risk

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Security hazards pose serious risk concerns. But, what makes them unacceptable dangers, is our inability to accurately assess and manage them. The prevailing method of using threat, vulnerability, and consequence to arrive at a risk value has a limitation of interdependence of these variables. This is because the adversary plans his attack using the desired consequence to identify the actionable hazard. While engineering failures tend to be random and accidental in nature, security related events are opportunistic and intentional. Security assessment is further challenged by lack of reliable data, while usability expert opinion is limited due to optimism and overreaction. We have proposed a derivation of the standard methods of risk assessment to compensate for these biases.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ale BJM (2009) Risk: an introduction: the concepts of risk, danger and chance, 1st edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown GG, Cox JLA (2011) How probabilistic risk assessment can mislead terrorism risk analysts. Risk Anal 31:196–204. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01492.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cambridge English Dictionary (2016) http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/. Cambridge University Press

  • Caponecchia C (2012) Relative risk perception for terrorism: implications for preparedness and risk communication. Risk Anal 32:1524–1534. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01784.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox JLA (2008) Some limitations of “risk = threat × vulnerability × consequence” for risk analysis of terrorist attacks. Risk Anal 28:1749–1761. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01142.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DHS Risk Steering Committee (2010) DHS Risk Lexicon vol 2010 Edition. Office of Risk Management and Analysis, National Protection and Programs Directorate, United States Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC

  • Guikema S (2012) Modeling intelligent adversaries for terrorism risk assessment: some necessary conditions for adversary models. Risk Anal 32:1117–1121. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01737.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HSE (2010) Step 5: demonstration of ALARP for the representative set. Health and Safety Executive. http://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/assessexplosives/step5.htm. Accessed 9 Apr 2016

  • ISO (2009) ISO Guide 73:2009 Risk Management—Vocabulary vol ISO/TC 262. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO Central Secretariat, BIBC II, Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Landoll DJ (2006) The security risk assessment handbook: A complete guide for performing security risk assessments. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla

  • Mærli MB, Barø R, Paaske BJ, Vahr HR, Lia B (2009) Energy Supply Chain Threat Assessment and Generic Security Guidance vol Del 3—EN3, Final Report. Coordination Action funded by the European Commission under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development (2002-2006) Transport Research & Innovation Portal (TRIP)

  • Masse T, O’Neil S, Rollins J (2007) The department of homeland security’s risk assessment methodology: evolution, issues, and options for congress. DTIC Document

  • Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2015) http://www.merriam-webster.com/. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

  • NASA (2008) NASA reliability-centered maintenance guide for facilities and collateral equipment, Final edn. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2010) Review of the department of homeland security’s approach to risk analysis. The National Academies Press, Washington. doi:10.17226/12972

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford English Dictionary (2016) http://www.oed.com/. Oxford University Press

  • Piètre-Cambacédès L, Chaudet C (2010) The SEMA referential framework: avoiding ambiguities in the terms “security” and “safety”. Int J Crit Infrastruct Prot 3:55–66. doi:10.1016/j.ijcip.2010.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radujković M, Vukomanović M, Wagner R, Yildiz AE, Dikmen I, Birgonul MT (2014) Using expert opinion for risk assessment: a case study of a construction project utilizing a risk mapping tool. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 119:519–528. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.058

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New Jersey City University, School of Business, Jersey City, NJ, USA

    Amit J. Mokashi

  2. Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Haugesund, Norway

    Ajit Kumar Verma

Authors
  1. Amit J. Mokashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ajit Kumar Verma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amit J. Mokashi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mokashi, A.J., Verma, A.K. The nature of maritime security risk. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 8, 862–866 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-017-0594-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-017-0594-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation