Visualization of differences across port state control regimes by means of correspondence analysis
This article is based on a combined dataset of 183,819 port state control (PSC) inspections from various port state control regimes around the world. In theory, there should be no differences in treatments of inspections to determine if a vessel is substandard or not no matter where the inspection was performed. This article uses correspondence analysis in order to investigate whether there are differences and if so, visualizes them for easier interpretation. The results of this analysis confirm that treatment of vessels across port state control regimes differ although some groupings of regimes across the ownership groups can be found. Association can be found between the Paris MoU and the Viña del Mar Agreement and between the Caribbean MoU and the Indian Ocean MoU while the USCG and AMSA are always apart from the rest. With respect to the distribution of deficiency codes towards regimes, only areas such as structural safety, radio communications or safety and cargo operational areas show similarities while ISM related deficiencies only show strong association with one regime. The differences clearly show that there is room for harmonization across port state control inspections in all inspection areas. Harmonization could be achieved by increasing cooperation amongst the regimes. A good starting point would be the acceleration of the harmonization of inspection procedures, combined training of port state control officers and the use of combined datasets across regimes, in particular in the concept of the development of the Global Integrated Ship Information System (GISIS) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
|Econometric Institute Research Papers|
|Report / Econometric Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam|
|Organisation||Erasmus School of Economics|
Knapp, S, & van de Velden, M. (2007). Visualization of differences across port state control regimes by means of correspondence analysis (No. EI 2007-32). Report / Econometric Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10466