Intelligent geospatial maritime risk analytics using the Discrete Global Grid System

References

• Abualhaol, I. Y., Falcon, R., Abielmona, R. S., & Petriu, E. M. (2018). Mining Port Congestion Indicators from Big AIS Data. International Joint Conference on Neural Networks. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 8-13 July 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Adland, R., Jia, H., Lode, T., & Skontorp, J. (2021). The value of meteorological data in marine risk assessment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 209. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2021.107480
   Google Scholar
• Baksh, A., Abbassi, R., Garaniya, V., & Khan, F. (2018). Marine transportation risk assessment using bayesian network: Application to arctic waters. Ocean Engineering, 159, 422–436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, R. (2016). dggridR: Discrete global grid systems for R [online]. Available at: https://github.com/r-barnes/dggridR. (Accessed 24/ May/2019).
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, R. (2019). Optimal orientations of discrete global grids and the Poles of Inaccessibility. International Journal of Digital Earth, 13(7), 803–816.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battersby, S., Stebe, D., & Finn, M. (2016). Shapes on a Plane: Evaluating the impact of projection distortion on spatial binning. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 44(5), 410–421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch, C., Oom, S., & Beecham, J. (2007). Rectangular and hexagonal grids used for observation, experiment and simulation in ecology. Ecological Modelling, 206(3–4), 347–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breiman, L., Freidman, J., Stone, C., & Olshen, R. (1984). Classification and Regression Trees. New York: Taylor and Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Bye, R., & Aalberg, A. (2018). Maritime navigation accidents and risk indicators: An exploratory statistical analysis using AIS data and accident reports. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 176, 174–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatzikokolakis, K., Zissis, D., Vodas, M., Spiliopoulos, G., & Kontopoulos, I. (2019). A distributed lightning fast maritime anomaly detection service. Oceans 2019, 17-20 June 2019. Marseillle 10.1109/OCEANSE.2019.8867269
   Google Scholar
• Correndo, G. (2019). DGGRIDPY Git-hub page [online]. Available at: https://github.com/correndo/dggridpy. (Accessed 22nd May 2020).
   Google Scholar
• DNV (2013). North east shipping risk assessment. Report No./DNV Reg No. 0/14OFICX-4 Rev 1.
   Google Scholar
• Dorsey, C., Wang, B., Grabowski, M., Merrick, J., & Harrald, J. (2020). Self-healing databases for predictive risk analytics in safety-critical systems. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 63. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2019.104014
   Google Scholar
• Eguiluz, V., Fernandez-Gracia, J., Irigoien, X., & Duarte, C. (2016). A quantitative assessment of Arctic shipping in 2010-2014. Scientific Reports, 6. doi:10.1038/srep30682
   Google Scholar
• EMSA. (2018). Joint Workshop on Risk Assessment and Response Planning in Europe [online]. Available at: http://www.emsa.europa.eu/workshops-a-events/188-workshops/3246-joint-workshop-on-risk-assessment-response-planning-in-europe.html. (Accessed 17th August 2021).
   Google Scholar
• Filipiak, D., Strozyna, M., Wecel, K., and Abramowicz, W. (2018). Anomaly Detection in the maritime Domain: Comparison of Traditional and Big Data Approach [online]. Available at:https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/STO%20Meeting%20Proceedings/STO-MP-IST-160/MP-IST-160-S2-5P.pdf(Accessed 17th August 2021)
   Google Scholar
• Fujii, Y., & Tanaka, R. (1971). Traffic Capacity. Journal of Navigation, 24(4), 543–552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibb, R. G. (2016). The rHealPIX Discrete Global Grid System. Proceedings of the 9th Symposium of the International Society for Digital Earth, Halifax, Canada, 5-9 October 2015. 10.1088/1755-1315/34/1/012012.
   Google Scholar
• Goodchild, M. (2000). Discrete Global Grids for Digital Earth. International Conference on Discrete Global Grids. Santa Barbara.
   Google Scholar
• Goodchild, M. (2018). Reimagining the history of GIS. Annals of GIS, 24(1), 1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanninen, M. (2014). Bayesian networks for maritime traffic accident prevention: Benefits and challenges. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 73, 305–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harati-Mokhtari, A., Wall, A., Brooks, P., & Wang, J. (2007). Automatic Identification System (AIS): Data reliability and human error implications. Journal of Navigation, 60(3), 373–389. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-navigation/article/abs/automatic-identification-system-ais-data-reliability-and-human-error-implications/6664900351CB5D9C3FF45F16D96F8832
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassel, M., Asbjornslett, B., & Hole, L. (2011). Underreporting of maritime accidents to vessel accident databases. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(6), 2053–2063.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedge, J., & Rokseth, B. (2020). Applications of machine learning methods for engineering risk assessment – A Review. Safety Science, 122. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2019.09.015
   Google Scholar
• Hilliard, F. M., Rezaee, C., & Pelot, R. (2018). Past, present and future of the satellite-based automatic identification system: Areas of applications (2004-2016). WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 17(3), 311–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoorn, S., & Knapp, S. (2015). A multi-layered risk exposure assessment approach for the shipping industry. Transportation Research Part A, 78, 21–33.
   Google Scholar
• IALA. (2002). IALA Guidelines on the Universal Automatic Identification System (AIS). Volume 1, Part II – Technical Issues (Edition 1.1 ed.). France: IALA.
   Google Scholar
• IALA. (2011). IALA Guideline No 1082 on an Overview of AIS (Edition 1 ed.). France: IALA.
   Google Scholar
• IMO. (2004). International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. London: IMO.
   Google Scholar
• Iphar, C., Ray, C., & Napoli, A. (2019). Uses and misuses of the automatic identification system. Oceans 2019, 17-20 June 2019. Marseille 10.1109/OCEANSE.2019.8867559
   Google Scholar
• Iphar, C., Ray, C., & Napoli, A. (2020). Data integrity assessment for maritime anomaly detection. Expert Systems with Applications, 147. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113219
   Google Scholar
• Jendryke, M., & McClure, S. (2019). Mapping crime – Hate crimes and hate groups in the USA: A Spatial analysis with gridded data. Applied Geography, 111. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.102072
   Google Scholar
• Jin, M., Shi, W., Yuen, K., Xiao, Y., & Li, K. (2019). Oil tanker risks on the marine environment: An empirical study and policy implications. Marine Policy, 108. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103655
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, I., Lee, H., & Lee, D. (2019). Development of a new tool for objective risk assessment and comparative analysis at coastal waters. Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs and Shipping, 2(2), 58–66.
   Google Scholar
• Kite-Powell, H., Jin, D., Jebsen, J., Papkonstantinou, V., & Patrikalakis, N. (1999). Investigation of potential risk factors for groundings of commercial vessels in U.S. Ports. International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, 9, 16-21.
   Google Scholar
• Kontopoulos, I., Varlamis, I., & Tserpes, K. (2020). A Distributed framework for extracting maritime traffic patterns. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 35(4), 767–792.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristiansen, S. (2005). Maritime Transportation Safety Management and Risk Analysis. Oxford: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kulkarni, K., Goerlandt, F., Li, J., Banda, O., & Kujala, P. (2020). Preventing shipping accidents: Past, present and future of waterway risk management with Baltic Sea focus. Safety Science, 129. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104798
   Google Scholar
• Leevy, J., Khoshgoftaar, T., Bauder, R., & Seliya, N. (2018). A survey on addressing high-class imbalance in big data. Journal of Big Data, 5(1), 42.
   Google Scholar
• Lensu, M., & Goerlandt, F. (2019). Big maritime data for the Baltic Sea with a focus on the winter navigation system. Marine Policy, 104, 53–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim, G., Cho, J., Bora, S., Biobaku, T., & Parsaei, H. (2018). Models and computational algorithms for maritime risk analysis: A review. Annals of Operational Research, 271(2), 765–786.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macduff, T. (1974). Probability of vessel collisions. Ocean Industry, 9, 144–148.
   Google Scholar
• MAIB. (2014a). Report on the investigation of the collision between Paula C and Darya Gayatri in the South-west lane of the Dover Traffic Separation Scheme on 11 December 2013. Report No 25/2014.
   Google Scholar
• MAIB. (2014b). Report on the investigation of the grounding of Danio off Longstone, Farne Islands, England on 16 March 2013. Report No 8/2014.
   Google Scholar
• MarineTraffic. (2017). Marine Traffic: 2007-2017. [online]. Available at: https://issuu.com/marinetraffic/docs/marinetraffic_issueone. (Accessed 19/ April/2019).
   Google Scholar
• Mazaheri, A., Montewka, J., Kotilainen, P., Sormunen, O. E., & Kujala, P. (2014). Assessing grounding frequency using ship traffic and waterway complexity. Journal of Navigation, 68(1), 89–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazaheri, A., Montewka, J., & Kujala, P. (2013). Correlation between the ship grounding accident and the ship traffic – a case study based on the statistics of the gulf of finland. TransNav: International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 7(1), 119–124.
   Google Scholar
• Mazaheri, A., Montewka, J., & Kujala, P. (2016). Towards an evidence-based probabilistic risk model for ship-grounding accidents. Safety Science, 86, 195–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milne, D., & Watling, D. (2019). Big data and understanding change in the context of planning transport systems. Journal of Transport Geography, 76, 235–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MMO (2014). Mapping UK Shipping Density and Routes Technical Annex: 1066. [online]. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/317771/1066-annex.pdf. (Accessed 19/ 04/2019).
   Google Scholar
• Olba, X., Daamen, W., Vellinga, T., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2019a). Multi-criteria evaluation of vessel traffic for port assessment: A case study of the Port of Rotterdam. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 7(4), 871–881.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olba, X., Daamen, W. V., Vellinga, T., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2019b). Risk assessment methodology for vessel traffic in ports by defining the nautical port risk index. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 8. doi:10.3390/jmse8010010
   Google Scholar
• Openshaw, S. (1977). Optimal zoning systems for spatial interaction models. Environment & Planning A, 9(2), 169–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purss, M., Peterson, P., Strobl, P., Dow, C., Sabeur, Z., Gibb, R., & Ben, J. (2019). Datacubes – A discrete global grid systems perspective. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualisation, 54(1), 63–71.
   Google Scholar
• Qu, X., Meng, Q., & Li, S. (2012). Analyses and Implications of Accidents in Singapore Strait. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2273(1), 106–111.
   Google Scholar
• Rawson, A., Sabeur, Z., & Correndo, G. (2019) Spatial challenges of maritime risk analysis using big data. S. C. Guedes (ed.) In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Collision and Grounding of Ships and Offshore Structures (ICCGS 2019), Lisbon, Portugal, (21st to 23rd October 2019). vol. 4, CRC Press/Balkema. pp. 275–283.
   Google Scholar
• Rawson, A., & Brito, M. (2021). A critique of the use of domain analysis for spatial collision risk assessment. Ocean Engineering, 219, 108259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawson, A., Brito, M., Sabeur, Z., & Tran-Thanh, L. (2021). A machine learning approach for monitoring ship safety in extreme weather events. Safety Science, 141, 105336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riskaware (2017). The OpenEAGGR software library on Github [online]. Available at: https://github.com/riskaware-ltd/open-eaggr/. (Accessed 24/ May/2019).
   Google Scholar
• Robertson, C., Chaudhuri, C., Hojati, M., & Roberts, S. (2020). An integrated environmental analytics system (IDEAS) based on a DGGS. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 162, 214–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahr, K. M., White, D., & Kimerling, A. J. (2003). Geodesic discrete global grid systems. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 30(2), 121–134.
   Google Scholar
• Scully, B., Young, D., & Ross, J. (2019). Mining marine vessel AIS data to inform coastal structure management. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Engineering, 146, 2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svanberg, M., Santen, V., Horteborn, A., Holm, H., & Finnsgard, C. (2019). AIS in maritime research. Marine Policy, 106. 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103520
   Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. (2005). Expert Political Judgement: How Good is it? How Can we Know? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tsou, M. (2019). Big data analytics of safety assessment for a port of entry: A case study in Keelung Harbour. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 233, pp. 1260–1275.
   Google Scholar
• Uber. (2018). Hexagonal hierarchical geospatial indexing system [online]. Available at: https://github.com/uber/h3. (Accessed 24/ May/2019).
   Google Scholar
• USCG. (2005). Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment Workshop Guide [online]. Available at: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=pawsaGuide. (Accessed 21st May 2020).
   Google Scholar
• Van Dorp, J., & Merrick, J. (2014). VTRA 2010 [online]. Available at:https://www2.seas.gwu.edu/~dorpjr/tab4/publications_VTRA_Update_Reports.html (Accessed 17th August 2021)
   Google Scholar
• Van Dorp, J. R., Harrald, J. R., Marrick, J. R. W., & Grabowski, M. (2008). VTRA: Technical Appendix D: Expert Judgement Elicitation. [online]. Available at: https://www2.seas.gwu.edu/~dorpjr/VTRA/FINAL%20REPORT/083108/VTRA%20REPORT%20-%20Appendix%20D%20083108.pdf. (Accessed 19/ 04/2019).
   Google Scholar
• Widhalm, G. A., & Dragaschnig, M. (2020). The M3 massive movement model: A distributed incrementally updatable solution for big movement data exploration. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 34(2), 2517–2540.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, L., Xu, Y., Wang, Q., Wang, F., & Xu, Z. (2017). Mapping global shipping density from AIS data. Journal of Navigation, 70(1), 67–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, D., Wu, L., Wang, S., Jia, H., & Li, K. (2019). How big data enriches maritime research – A critical review of Automatic Identification System (AIS) data applications. Transport Reviews, 39(6), 755–773.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan, Z., Zhou, X., Yang, T., Tamerius, J., & Mantilla, R. (2017). Predicting traffic accidents through heterogeneous urban data: A case study. 23rd ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Halifax. 10.1145/3347146.3359078.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, L., Meng, Q., & Fwa, T. (2017). Big AIS data based spatial-temporal analyses of ship traffic in Singapore port waters. Transportation Research Part E, 129, 287–304.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, Y., Sun, X., Chen, J., & Cheng, C. (2021). Spatial patterns and characteristics of global maritime accidents. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 206. 10.1016/j.ress.2020.107310
   Google Scholar