The effectiveness of double hulls in reducing vessel-accident oil spillage

Marine Pollution Bulletin

Volumn 62, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 2427-2432

  Yip, Tsz Leung ^a   Talley, Wayne K ^b   Jin, Di ^c  

^a HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY   (Hong Kong)

^b OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION   (United States)

Author keywords

Double hull; Marine environment protection; Oil spill; Vessel accident; Water pollution

Indexed keywords

DOUBLE HULL; EMPIRICAL DATA; HULL DESIGNS; MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION; OIL SPILLAGE; POLLUTION INCIDENTS; SHIP ACCIDENTS; SHIP HULL; TANK BARGES; TOBIT REGRESSION; US COAST GUARD;

ACCIDENTS; FERRY BOATS; HULLS (SHIP); OIL SPILLS; POLLUTION; TANKERS (SHIPS); WATER POLLUTION;

MARINE POLLUTION;

ACCIDENT; HULL; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; MARINE POLLUTION; OIL SPILL; OIL SPILL RESPONSE; VESSEL;

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EXPLOSION RISK; FIRE PROTECTION; OIL SPILL; SHIP; TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; WATER POLLUTION;

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PETROLEUM POLLUTION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SHIPS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 80355126309     PISSN: 0025326X     EISSN: 18793363     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.08.026     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Brown R.S., Savage I. The economics of double-hulled tankers. Maritime Policy and Management 1996, 23(2):167-175.
2. Clarkson, 2011. Shipping Intelligence Network, Clarkson Research.
3. Dalton T., Jin D. Extent and frequency of vessel oil spills in US marine protected areas. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2010, 60(11):1939-1945.
4. Glen D. Modeling the impact of double hull technology on oil spill numbers. Maritime Policy and Management 2010, 37(5):475-487.
5. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis 2008, Prentice-Hill, Upper Saddle River, NJ. eighth ed.
6. Homan A.C., Steiner T. OPA 90's impact at reducing oil spills. Marine Policy 2008, 32(4):711-718.
7. Hopkins T.D. Oil spill reduction and costs of ship design regulation. Contemporary Policy Issues 1992, 10(3):59-70.
8. INTERTANKO, 2010. Tanker Incidents. www.intertanko.com.
9. Jin D., Kite-Powell H.L., Broadus J.M. Dynamic economic analysis of marine pollution prevention technologies: an application to double hulls and electronic charts. Environmental and Resource Economics 1994, 4(6):555-580.
10. Kim I. Ten years after the enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990: a success or a failure. Marine Policy 2002, 26(3):197-207.
11. MEPC Amendments to the Annex of the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships, 1973. MEPC. 141(54) 2006, Marine Environment Protection Committee, International Maritime Organization.
12. MEPC Formal Safety Assessment - Crude Oil Tankers. MEPC 58/17/2 2008, Marine Environment Protection Committee, International Maritime Organization.
13. MEPC Formal Safety Assessment - Crude Oil Tankers. MEPC 58/INF.2 2008, Marine Environment Protection Committee, International Maritime Organization.
14. McDonald J.F., Moffitt R.A. The uses of tobit analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics 1980, 62(2):318-321.
15. MSC FSA Study on ECDIS/ENCs: Details on Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Assessments. MSC 81/INF.9 2006, Maritime Safety Committee, International Maritime Organization.
16. National Research Council (NRC) Tanker Spills: Prevention by Design 1991, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
17. NAV Development of Carriage Requirements for ECDIS. NAV 54.14 2008, Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation, International Maritime Organization.
18. Tobin J. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica 1958, 26(1):24-36.
19. USCG, 2011. Marine Information for Safety Law Enforcement (MISLE) http://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/home.do.