281

1 INTRODUCTION

Evacuation of cruise/passenger ships is a crucial

element of maritime safety; this procedure can be

activated in case profound danger threatens the

livelihood of all individuals onboard a vessel,

including both crew and passengers. It requires the

fast, structured, and coordinated movement of

individuals from their current locations to designated

muster stations, and finally embarkation to lifeboats or

other survival crafts. Despite the seemingly structured

nature of this process, real-world incidents have

showcased multiple challenges-both predictable and

emergent- that can affect the efficiency and

effectiveness of an evacuation. Delays in decision-

making, difficulties in communication, and human

behavioral unpredictability are indicative factors that

can contribute in escalating a manageable emergency

into a large-scale disaster. In such perilous situations,

where every minute counts, an inability to complete

the abandonment promptly and within the timeframes

as established by SOLAS Reg. Ch. III/ Reg. 21.1.3 – 30

minutes [1] for cruise and passenger ships- may result

in numerous life-losses.

On paper, modern cruise/passenger ships are

conforming to strict safety regulations that aim to

ensure the adequacy of evacuation procedures under

diverse emergency scenarios. The International

Maritime Organization (IMO), over the years

recognizing the growing size, capacity, and complexity

of passenger and cruise ships, has established detailed

design and safety requirements aimed to enhance

evacuation outcomes. Among these are evacuation

simulation models used during the ship design phase,

which test theoretical performance by evaluating

factors such as available escape routes, congestion

patterns, and total evacuation time [2]. Naval architects

“Voices from the Deck”: Evacuation Effectiveness

on Cruise and Passenger Ships through Seafarers’

Perspectives and Literature Analysis

A. Andreadakis & D. Dalaklis

World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden

ABSTRACT: The effectiveness of cruise/passenger ship evacuation is influenced by multiple factors. This paper

investigates the limitations of current evacuation protocols by examining crew training practices, human

behavioral and psychological patterns during emergencies, ship design innovations and constraints, as well as

factors not under human control such as weather, sea state, and specific type of emergency. Furthermore, it

provides a comparative analysis between available literature around various factors that can determine the

outcome of a cruise/ passenger ship evacuation, and empirical data obtained from responses of approximately

100 seafarers employed in the cruise and passenger ship industry. Related data revolves around key areas such

as drills, ashore training, psychological impact, decision making, evacuation practices and preparedness, and

evacuation equipment. Seafarers (along with passengers) are directly and most affected during a ship emergency,

therefore uncovering existing regulatory gaps, boosting the safety culture onboard ships, and providing solutions

that will enhance the safe evacuation practices (and ultimately save more lives) are clearly actions of priority.

http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 19

Number 1

March 2025

DOI: 10.12716/1001.19.01.34

282

employ these simulations to verify compliance or

detect contradictions with the regulatory standards,

thus determining whether vessel layouts permit for

safe egress for all onboard occupants within the

established limits. Nonetheless, despite the advances

and developments in naval architecture, technology,

and simulation-based planning, high profile maritime

disasters such as the Costa Concordia (2012) and the

Norman Atlantic (2014) have highlighted the

persistence of crucial shortcomings in actual

evacuation scenarios. These deficiencies cannot be

solely attributed to design limitations or equipment

failure, but in many cases are connected to human

factors, such as inadequate crew training (ashore and

onboard), poor passenger preparedness, panic

behavior, and communication breaches. Maritime

regulatory bodies have broadened their scope beyond

technical considerations, aiming to investigate and

address the influence of the “human element” in safety

management. STCW in conjunction with SOLAS [2,3],

over the years have mandated training protocols and

regulations for seafarers involved in the

cruise/passenger ship industry, aiming to boost crew

competence during emergencies. Indicative examples

are crowd management, crisis communication, and

passenger assistance.

Nevertheless, the practical effectiveness of these

developments remains a topic of concern. Questions

persist around the ability of the existing training

regimes, drills, and procedural briefings to adequately

prepare the crew and passengers for stressful,

uncommon events such as a real-life ship evacuation.

Additionally, the safety culture onboard ships and

shipping organizations, the consistency in the conduct

of drills, the uniformity in ashore training and

preparedness between flag states, remain largely a

debate with researchers often claiming considerable

deficiencies. Furthermore, the psychological and

behavioral reactions of individuals during

emergencies, particularly in an environment of large

and diverse passenger groups, exacerbate even further

the complexity around evacuation planning and

preparedness. Certain research efforts suggest that

panic, confusion, and deviation from instructions are a

common phenomenon during emergency conditions,

particularly when instructions are unclear or oppose

instinctive responses. These dynamics in combination

with unregulated variables in the aftermath of the

accident such as list, visibility, time of day, type of

accident, intensify the problem and raise further the

question around the effectiveness of the current

evacuation practices.

Taking into consideration the interplay between

technical design, regulatory compliance, human

psychology and interaction in regards to the topic of

evacuation practices and efficiency, an in-depth

analysis of the issue requires a multifaceted approach.

This paper is conducting a comparative study that

utilizes findings from existing academic literature with

empirical data acquired from seafarers employed in the

cruise/passenger ship sector. Since seafarers and

passengers are the people most and directly affected

during a ship emergency, the survey captures first-

hand insights from the experiences, perceptions, and

difficulties faced by maritime professionals before and

during real or simulated evacuation scenarios. By

validating the established literature with the acquired

data, this study aims to locate existing gaps in

knowledge around the topic, discrepancies between

theoretical planning and practical execution, possible

disparities and inefficiencies in training protocols, and

understanding of human nature. Finally, drawing on

the survey responses of seafarers working within the

cruise/ passenger ship sector, this study presents a

recommendation aimed at improving the effectiveness

and efficiency of evacuation procedures.

2 METHODOLOGY

The current paper constitutes part of the wider PhD

effort of the leading author, designed to present the

current state of passenger and cruise ship evacuation

efficiency, to locate the factors and elements that

contribute to ineffective evacuation, and to propose

measures that could potentially enhance the

evacuation efficiency and preparedness; thus, boosting

the cruise/ passenger ship evacuation safety standards

and ultimately saving more lives. The methodology

utilized is a comparison between literature findings

and results of a mixed-method survey questionnaire

disseminated between seafarers of different ranks

employed on passenger and cruise ships. The main

literature findings are strongly based on three different

review papers, aiming to examine holistically the

various aspects of the evacuation inefficiencies topic.

The research areas that the literature

explored/presented are the topics of seafarer

evacuation training in forms of ashore and onboard

preparedness (drills), the behavioral patterns exhibited

by people during evacuation, the unregulated factors

experienced during an abandonment and their effect

on the evacuation outcome (e.g., weather conditions).

Furthermore, the influence and impact of the human

element, human psychology, group behavior, and ship

design during an emergency evacuation were

approached through the literature review.

Additionally, a literature investigation was conducted

around possible existing innovative solutions (from the

maritime and other industries) aimed to enhance the

safety and efficiency of an emergency ship evacuation.

The literature findings are compared with the

questionnaire results to evaluate or contradict the

available literature and to provide an upgraded

understanding of the current state of affairs around the

reviewed topic, while providing recommendations

from the seafarers’ perspective aimed to enhance the

evacuation efficiency on cruise/passenger ships.

Moreover, the adoption of a mixed-method survey was

considered as the optimal research tool for the current

study as it allowed for a comprehensive exploration of

seafarers' opinions and experiences of the

aforementioned topics, without tiring the respondents

with long-open ended questions that could possibly

have high dropout rates. By having a seafaring

background, researchers were aware that seafarers are

often tired of their demanding working schedule and

hours and in many cases tend to provide short or

untrue answers when faced with open-ended surveys;

consequently, a mixed-method questionnaire seemed

as useful means to encourage wider participation,

while at the same time achieving the required

thoroughness.

283

The mixed-method design that was selected to be

utilized in the questionnaire was the “Embedded

Design” with 47 quantitative questions guiding the

questionnaire, that are complemented with 8 open-

ended qualitative questions used as an explanatory

opportunity for the participant to discuss and elaborate

more on the previous short-ended questions (overall 55

questions). Additionally, the survey adopted an

electronic format (“Question Pro” survey program) to

facilitate easier dissemination between seafarers of

different ranks employed in the cruise/passenger ship

industry. The questionnaire was strictly anonymous

and followed the research ethical standards, as

established by the Research Ethics Committee of the

World Maritime University. This approach was

intended not only to safeguard the privacy of the

participants, but also to encourage candid and honest

responses from them, without the fear of personal

identification or potential repercussions from their

employers. The completion rate of the survey was

61,9% and the total answers received varied between

90-100 depending on the question.

3 RESULTS & DISCUSSION

3.1 Training

Based on the Standards of Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) Convention,

people aiming to pursue employment as crew

members onboard ships are obligated to complete

Basic Safety Training and familiarization, as mandated

in Regulation VI/1. During the course of this training,

essential knowledge and principals are provided

around survival strategies, procedures, and

individuals’ duties during emergency situations, such

as evacuation. Nevertheless, although this training

incorporates theoretical knowledge ashore and some

basic practical experience, it is understandable that

such classes are often insufficient in preparing

seafarers for real-life emergency evacuation scenarios

which involve high-stress and life-threatening

situations at sea [4]. Consequently, practical onboard

training in the form of drills is required across all vessel

types, to enhance these competencies and place into

practice the acquired knowledge under more realistic

conditions. As per SOLAS Chapter III, Regulation 19.3

[1] passenger vessels are required to conduct abandon-

ship drills at least once per week to ensure continuous

readiness among the crew. Furthermore, a drill must

be conducted within 24 hours of departure from port if

more than 25% of the crew is newly assigned or has not

participated in a drill within the previous month.

Additionally, passenger or cruise ships involved in

voyages lasting more than 24 hours, hold Muster drills

where passengers are required to participate as well

(these drills aim to prepare the passengers for safe

evacuation, in the event of an emergency onboard the

ship; at the same time, they familiarize the crew and

passengers with the escape routes of the vessel). The

related regulations highlight the critical importance of

practical preparedness, particularly while taking into

consideration the special characteristics of each vessel,

differences in life-saving appliances, and the unique

responsibilities given to each crew member. The

significance of early and thorough familiarization with

onboard emergency procedures is vital for ensuring

readiness during emergencies.

Despite the existence of a wide regulatory

framework aiming to safeguard human life at sea,

serious concerns around the sufficiency and

implementation of these measures still persist.

Literature suggests that in practice, emergency drills

are often treated with minimal seriousness, frequently

perceived by seafarers as a mandatory monotonous

task, rather than a vital safety exercise [5]. This data is

furtherly supported by the survey findings that

showcase that 34% of the respondents claim that fellow

crew members have stated that drills are a waste of

time, and shall be performed in less frequent intervals.

This finding is rather alarming while considering that

further survey answers indicate that only around 40%

percent of the participants feel fully confident in

understanding and performing their duties during

evacuation drills. Moreover, literature findings

support that in many cases crew members- particularly

those with larger experience and of older age- feel

overconfident in their abilities to perform their

evacuation duties, which may lead in downplaying the

importance of alarms and limit their responses [5]. The

literature evidence is furtherly highlighted by the

survey results that claim that around 32% percent of

the participants have experienced colleagues

abstaining from drills, usually attributing this to lack of

professionalism, interest, high work demands and

refusal to disrupt their rest-time. Further survey results

indicate that around 30% of the respondents report

instances in which drills were falsely reported as

performed, while another 9% were unsure about the

legitimate conduct of drills. Mostly, false drill

reporting as per the findings is attributed to high work

demands leading to lack of time to perform the

required onboard training. Additionally, another

concerning finding is the fact that around half of the

survey participants claim that their workload

negatively impacts their ability to fully achieve the

objectives of an evacuation drill (Fig. 1), drawing

therefore a direct connection between high work

demands and drill inefficiency; a scenario that not only

undermines the procedural integrity of evacuation

preparedness, but also might poses a lethal danger to

the lives of crew and passenger in a potential real-life

emergency.

In regards to the ashore training Pospolicki [6]

based on interview findings highlights inconsistencies

in pre-boarding training within large passenger and

cruise vessels. Indicatively lower-ranking personnel

are reported to undergo considerably less training than

higher ranking officers, resulting in uneven levels of

preparedness among the crew; thus, prompting

questions around ineffective responses in real life

emergencies. This finding is complemented by the

questionnaire findings since 40% percent of the

respondents consider the provided training ashore

inefficient for preparing the crewmembers for real-life

emergencies or they are unsure of its effectiveness.

Some seafarers elaborate furtherly claiming that some

flags allow seafarers to have their training onboard

without any previous ashore training, others claim that

the ashore training standards in some countries are

very low or non-existent, resulting in considerable

gaps of understanding and preparedness among

crewmembers.

284

Consequently, it can be understood that gaps in

ashore training could lead to inconsistencies in the

understanding, effectiveness and responses of

crewmembers during drills, a phenomenon that could

be fatal during a real need of abandonment. Another

common element noticed both in the literature [6,7]

and the survey is the inability of the ashore training

and drills to replicate in an optimal manner

emergencies requiring evacuations and the analogous

surrounding conditions (e.g. inclination, water intake),

as it would be extremely capital intensive. Moreover,

these types of training cannot depict the real image of

an evacuation, since the participants are usually in

good mental and physical health and they are focused

on the well-being of passengers and not their own; a

fact that does not correspond to the reality of an

abandonment. Survey respondents strongly agree with

that finding with only 22% percent of them opposing

the perception that people’s responses and reactions

differ between real-life evacuations and drills.

Figure 1. Effect on crew’s workload on evacuation drills.

3.2 Human Element

During emergencies at sea, individuals may showcase

a wide variety of behavioral and psychological

responses, often including but not limited to

indecisiveness, leadership issues, hesitation, panic,

confusion, and even inaction. These reactions are not

incidental but are largely influenced by a complex

spectrum of factors, such as age, health, cognitive

impairment, familiarity with the vessel, nature of

emergency, and the presence (or absence) of

companions. In high-density environments like

passenger and cruise ships, personal behavior is

largely affected by the actions of others, a phenomenon

known as social influence, which plays a crucial role

when reliable information is scarce or contradictory [8].

Consequently, it can be understood that the

unpredictable elements of human nature can play a

determining role in the outcome of an evacuation. The

decisive effects of human element were showcased in

the maritime disasters of M/S Estonia and Costa

Concordia, where it was clearly demonstrated that

human behavior and reactions can shape the success or

failure of evacuation procedures and protocols;

especially under stressful and time-sensitive

conditions [9, 10].

As per Casareale et al. [11] an evacuation process

can be divided in three primary phases: pre-movement

phase, motion process, and achievement of the safe

place. During these phases the effects of human

element are extensively prevalent through different

actions and responses and can largely influence the

outcome of the ship evacuation. The pre-movement

phase commences after the alarm activation. During

this period individuals try to raise situational

awareness regarding the situation, by observing

actions and behaviors exhibited by their co-passengers.

Interestingly, it is common this period to be long-

lasting, since individuals tend to disregard early

emergency and alarm signs and continue with their

routine activities – a behavior that can be linked to

psychological denial. Throughout this psychological

state, which constitutes a psychological defense

mechanism, people fail to acknowledge the severity of

an unfolding situation; as they do not want to accept

that their life and safety might be in danger. Therefore,

they subconsciously attempt to connect the ongoing

warnings with previously experienced false

emergency warnings and alarms.

Furthermore, [12, 13] underlines the direct link of

denial with “freezing” behavior, which is a

psychological and mental state in which people find

themselves psychologically paralyzed and unable to

act. The roots of this behavioral pattern can be traced

in the disruption of habitual behavioral scripts , where

individuals confronted with unprecedented danger

might be unable to formulate new action patterns

quickly, resulting in inaction or confusion. The

aforementioned literature findings are in total

agreement with the survey results that indicate that

65% of the respondents believe that their capabilities to

perform their duties can be affected at a large extend

by panic, fear, “freezing behavior” or despair in a real-

life abandonment event, while 20% of the participants

claim a moderate effect in their capabilities (Fig. 2). It is

worth noting that these results are coming from

professional seafarers that have had formal ashore

training and drill participations throughout their

career. It is therefore conceivable to assume that the

passengers who are largely inexperienced and

untrained around any evacuation scenario, are prone

to showcase more prevalent and long-lasting signs of

denial, “freezing behavior”, and other similar patterns

that provoke evacuation delays.

Harbst and Madsen [14] attempt to provide further

insights on the occurring delays by suggesting that

delays might occur due to the fact that the passengers

do not pay the necessary attention to the briefings and

Muster drills at the beginning of the voyage. Generally,

passengers are prone to underestimate the possible

risks and consequently they are unprepared for

responding effectively during an emergency. The

seafarers participating in the conducted survey report

that around half of the passengers are truly engaged

during the execution of Muster drills, while the rest of

the ship passengers are moderately or less interested in

them. Furthermore, only 58% of the respondents

believe that the Muster drills, in the currently

performed way, are sufficient to prepare the

passengers for a real-life evacuation, with the

remaining 22% supporting that they are insufficient

and the remaining 20% is unsure about their

effectiveness.

285

Figure 2. Effects of psychological and mental impact in real-

life abandonment.

The motion process -which constitutes the second

stage of an emergency evacuation- is commencing after

the individuals onboard have acknowledged the

pressing danger to their lives. This phase involves

active wayfinding and movement towards designated

safe zones, such as muster stations, lifeboats, and/ or

life rafts within a limited time window. It also requires

the passengers to adhere to the crew instructions

around following the most efficient and accessible

evacuation route, in order to avoid congestion and

facilitate orderly movement [16]. This stage is arguably

the most demanding, crucial, and decisive element of

the entire evacuation process, since its success is

dependent on a variety of interrelated factors such as:

passengers’ familiarity with the vessel layout and

emergency protocols, the crew’s ability to provide

appropriate guidance (people’s management) and

effective leadership, the quality of crew’s training and

the ability of personnel to respond effectively in high

stress emergency conditions [17].

The effects of miscommunication, lack of leadership

or misdirection during this evacuation stage can lead

to vital delays with catastrophic effects, as individuals

tend to place trust and confidence on figures with

authority during emergencies [11]. The importance of

effective communication (and the catastrophic effects

in its absence) during emergency evacuation is also

highlighted by the survey findings; which indicate that

the most significant impediment during an evacuation

is the ineffective communication between crew and

passengers, together with the ability or inability of the

crew to make timely and informed decisions.

Furthermore, the questionnaire results demonstrate

that based on the participants opinions the most

common mistakes occurring during the course of an

evacuation are associated with the failure to properly

communicate instructions to the passengers. While the

second most commonly identified shortcoming is

connected with the inadequacy of the crew to

coordinate and to lead the crew effectively to a safe

place.

The third and final stage of an evacuation process

(achievement of the safe place) entails the accounting

and physical embarkation of crew and passengers onto

the lifesaving vessels and the following launch of them.

Although this process is seemingly straightforward,

this phase still requires effective coordination and self-

control under pressure. The findings from the survey

are consistent with those reported in the existing

literature, supporting as the third most common

mistake contributing to the overall delays during ship

evacuation the delayed deployment of evacuation

means.

3.3 Ship Design

Ship design is a further factor that affects the outcome

of an evacuation as suggested by the findings of the

existing literature. The sinking of M/V Estonia in 1994,

which resulted in 851 life-losses, served as the catalyst

in the evolution of maritime safety regulations. The

IMO in response to the disastrous incident initiated

various regulatory enhancements aimed at elevating

onboard safety from the preliminary stages of vessel

design [18]. These measures incorporate a wide range

of key structural elements, including damage stability

following water ingress, structural fire protection,

reliability of essential onboard systems, and,

ultimately, arrangements for safe evacuation should all

other systems fail [19]. More specifically, regulatory

frameworks have been developed and incorporated

into SOLAS, particularly regarding the optimization of

passenger ship design for evacuation readiness.

Chapter II-1/2 of SOLAS outlines the mandatory

structural and stability requirements aimed at

enhancing ship safety levels and survivability in

adverse scenarios. Furthermore, the IMO's Maritime

Safety Committee (MSC) over the years have issued

circulars [2, 20] which provide detailed guidelines for

performing evacuation analyses during both the initial

design and possible modification phases of passenger

vessels. The aim of these guidelines is to ensure that a

ship abandonment can be completed in the prescribed

30-minute timeframe, as clearly established in SOLAS

Reg. Ch. III/ Reg. 21.1.3 [1]. These guidelines utilize

certain calculative formulas and methodologies to

estimate the duration of ship evacuation, always taking

into consideration factors such as crew, passengers,

ship’s inclination, water intake. In case that the

evacuation time exceeds the 30-minute limit, the

evacuation plan must be revised. If compliance cannot

be attained despite revisions, the vessel’s internal

layout, particularly the arrangement of escape routes,

must be modified accordingly [21, 22].

Nevertheless, real-life evacuations often deviate

significantly from simulation-based expectations due

to a variety of factors. For instance, vessel’s heel and

trim as a result of asymmetric flooding can obstruct

movement and block escape routes, thus hindering the

evacuation process and causing delays. Research

indicates that during evacuation simulation studies

conducted by Fang et al. [23] that heeling angles

directly influence the evacuation times. Interestingly it

was observed that at a 10° heeling angle, evacuation

times rose by 15.2%, at 20°, evacuation durations

escalated markedly by 42.5%, while at the extreme

angle of 30°, evacuation times surged by 142.9%.

Hence, it is evident that passengers’ movement is

utterly affected by the rolling angles. Furthermore, the

ship’s trim appears to affect the pedestrian flow in a

similar manner. In an evacuation simulation study

conducted by Wang et al. [24], it was observed that a

20° bow trim can increase the evacuation times up to

46.4% and a 20° stern trim increases evacuation time by

29.3%.

286

Additionally, the availability and configuration of

staircases and exits can impact the evacuation process

and outcome by causing congestion and delays. In

greater detail literature supports that centralized

staircases can create bottlenecks that overall slow

evacuation time and can lead to passenger confusion

and erratic behavior [25]. In contrast the utilization of

side staircases, that in practice implies multiple exit

pathways (even if narrower) expedite evacuation by

dispersing the crowd and significantly reducing

bottlenecks. Moreover, the placement of exits opposite

to the staircases enhances even further the evacuation

efficiency by reducing turns and possible obstacles.

Also, by positioning the exits directly in front of

people’s field of view, a reduction of confusion and

hesitation is achieved making the movement towards

the Muster Stations more immediate and intuitive [26].

Furthermore, the location of Muster Station is

another factor that can significantly influence the

evacuation outcome during an emergency. Research

supports that placing Muster Stations in proximity to

high-occupancy zones, such as cabins, commonplaces

and operational workspaces, minimizes the distance

passengers and crew must travel during an emergency.

Consequently, by reducing these distances, the

probability of confusion, congestion, waiting times

proportionally decreases, thus expediting the

evacuation performance and lowering the probability

of casualties [27]. Τhe questionnaire results indicate

that around 40% of the survey participants strongly or

moderately support that the structure and interior

design of a ship (e.g. placement of stairs and exits,

width of doors and corridors) can have a significant

impact at an abandonment outcome. Nevertheless, it is

noteworthy, unexpected, and largely contradictory to

the literature findings that the remaining 60% did not

recognize the ship design as a significant contributing

factor in an evacuation outcome; thus, raising

questions around the crew’s comprehension around

crucial factors during shipboard emergencies (Fig. 3).

The technological advancement of the last decades

has contributed significantly to the facilitation of

advanced simulation models aimed to facilitate

evacuation prediction and simulation from the design

phase taking into consideration many factors. This

software tools are built based on the SOLAS mandates

and specifications and can furtherly replicate factors

such as surrounding environment, individuals’

behaviors, crowd dynamics, ship motion, and

environmental conditions in order to produce a highly

accurate prediction of an evacuation outcome; aiming

to improve the ship design quality and promote further

crew and passenger safety [28, 29, 30].

Moreover, as mentioned above, communicating

evacuation orders and controlling large numbers of

crowds are the main challenges in large passenger ship

and cruise ship evacuations. Studies support that

wayfinding systems can be very beneficial in leading

passengers to safety and maintaining orderliness.

These systems utilize algorithms to dynamically adjust

evacuation routes based on real-time crowd behavior

and environmental conditions and aim to disseminate

people to directions and exits that accelerate the

evacuation and prevent bottlenecks [29, 31]. The

survey findings indicate that seafarers are generally

very supportive towards the integration of modern

technologies in ship evacuation with 40% of the

participants strongly believing that the incorporation

of innovative technologies can enhance the

effectiveness of evacuation practices and 27% of them

being unsure around the extent that the contemporary

technological solutions can assist during an evacuation

emergency.

Figure 3. Influence of Ship’ design in evacuation outcome.

4 CONCLUSIONS & SEAFARERS’ SUGGESTIONS

This paper briefly examined the complex factors that

influence the effectiveness of evacuation procedures on

cruise/passenger ships, by utilizing a dual approach

that incorporated extensive literature analysis with

empirical data collected through a mixed-method

questionnaire with the participation of professional

seafarers. This approach uncovered a persistent (and

rather alarming) inconsistency between the formal

regulatory framework and the practical application of

evacuation protocols on board vessels. Although

international maritime conventions such as SOLAS

and STCW (with a strong safety focus) have placed

commendable effort in effectively approaching

technical standards, design considerations, human

element issues and training protocols, the data

collected from seafarers clearly underline that a certain

number of important weaknesses remain in the real-life

application of these measures.

More precisely, among the most urgent challenges

identified are the irregularities in the quality and

frequency of onboard drills, the limited and

inconsistent value of ashore training activities, and the

inclination among crew members to downplay the

seriousness and value of evacuation drills and training.

Moreover, the phenomena of “drill fatigue” and false

drill reporting further undermine procedural integrity

and introduce incalculable risks and dangers during

emergencies. Similarly, the comparative study

underlines the unevenness in the training received by

different ranks of personnel (often mandated by flag

states or regulated by companies), that could introduce

disparities in the preparedness of crew which may

critically affect coordinated action during a crisis.

Another major area of implications surrounds the

psychological and behavioral aspects of human

response during emergencies.

In the same direction, the survey results verify that

even seasoned seafarers are susceptible to fear,

confusion, and hesitation under stress – responses that

are even more common and profound between

untrained passengers. Additionally, during the pre-

movement phase of an evacuation, it is notably likely

for psychological phenomena such as denial and

287

freezing to occur, which can significantly delay the

commencement of evacuation actions. Furthermore,

ineffective communication, lack of leadership, and

decision-making delays were identified by the survey

participants as key contributors to evacuation delays

during the motion phase. In regards to ship design, it

was also validated (and confirmed the existing

literature findings) that structural configurations

involving staircases, exits, and the placement of muster

stations, play a crucial role in promoting or impeding

safe evacuation. Nevertheless, the survey also captured

a surprisingly limited understanding among crew

members around the contribution and importance of

design factors in emergency outcomes, showcasing a

possible gap in onboard and ashore safety education

and familiarization.

The identification of numerous technical,

procedural, and psychological shortcomings is

strongly indicating the need to reevaluate the current

evacuation strategies and to examine the possible

adoption of a more holistic safety paradigm. The

survey responses of the participants regarding

suggestions that could potentially improve the overall

evacuation processes are mostly focused on the need of

enhancing the level training the seafarers receive both

ashore (before joining the vessel), but also onboard (in

the form of drills). More specifically, the respondents

emphasized on the need of higher level, stricter, and

more homogenous ashore training through all crew

ranks. Furthermore, they underlined that all flag states

should mandate ashore training as compulsory –

without the alternative of conducting that training

onboard. In that way the level of competency of

seafarers around evacuation procedures can be

increasingly uniform between individuals of different

nationalities and ranks, thus achieving a higher overall

procedural understanding, competency, and a fertile

ground for drills to be performed more effectively.

In regards to the conduct of drills, a large number

of participants stressed the importance of conducting

drills in more frequent intervals that will be able to

cover a wide variety of emergencies and evacuation

scenarios, aiming to familiarize the crew members with

all possible emergencies and necessary responses. In

that way the reaction time and freezing behavior could

be possibly shortened and therefore the evacuation

delays could be reduced, resulting in higher efficacy

and efficiency of the process. Additionally, the survey

participants underlined the need of adopting more in-

depth Muster Drills, during which the passengers can

be more engaged and informed about emergency

evacuations and understanding the complete severity

of an emergency situation requiring abandonment.

Also, it is suggested that crew members should receive

more knowledge and training around leadership and

management of psychologically distressed people, in

an effort to be more reliable and successful in their

duties of guiding and managing individuals in the

stressful and life-threatening event of an evacuation.

These proposals provided by the seafarers offer

promising avenues for overcoming the human

limitations identified in this research effort. Ultimately,

the findings of this paper are a strong reminder that

any sustainable safety advancement in the

cruise/passenger ship sector must be “seafarer-

centric”, since they are the individuals directly

involved and handle those emergency scenarios. Their

experiences and insights constitute invaluable

feedback that regulatory authorities, flag states, and

training institutions must integrate into future safety

planning.

REFERENCES

[1] International Maritime Organization. (2024). International

Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, as

amended.

[2] International Maritime Organization. (2016). Revised

guidelines on evacuation analysis for new and existing

passenger ships (MSC.1/Circ.1533).

[3] STCW including 2010 Manila Amendments, 2017 Edition.

[4] Andreadakis, A., & Dalaklis, D. (2022). Evacuation of

ships: Discovering the mishaps behind the casualties.

Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental

Affairs, and Shipping, 6(2-3), 135-140.

https://doi.org/10.1080/25725084.2022.2129200

[5] Szcześniak, J. A. (2013). Importance of the on-board crew

trainings and drills for the improvement of the vessels’

safety. Prace Wydziału Nawigacyjnego Akademii

Morskiej w Gdyni, (28), 88-95.

https://doi.org/10.12716/1002.28.11

[6] Pospolicki, M. (2017). A study on how to improve the

mass evacuation at sea with the use of survival crafts.

LUTVDG/TVBB.

[7] Wahl, Aud M., and Trond Kongsvik. "Crew resource

management training in the maritime industry: a

literature review." WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 17.3

(2018): 377-396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0150-7

[8] Nilsson, D., & Johansson, A. (2009). Social influence

during the initial phase of a fire evacuation-Analysis of

evacuation experiments in a cinema theatre. Fire Safety

Journal, 44(1), 71-79.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2008.03.008

[9] Leach, J. (1994). Survival psychology. Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230372719

[10] Robinson, S. J. (2012). When Disaster Strikes: Human

Behaviour in Emergency Situations. Journal of the

Institute of Civil Protection and Emergency Management.

[11] Casareale, C., Bernardini, G., Bartolucci, A., Marincioni,

F., & D’Orazio, M. (2017, December). Cruise ships like

buildings: Wayfinding solutions to improve emergency

evacuation. In Building Simulation (Vol. 10, pp. 989-

1003). Tsinghua University Press. DOI:10.1007/s12273-

017-0381-0

[12] Leach, J. (2004). Why People ‘Freeze’ in an Emergency:

Temporal and Cognitive Constraints on Survival

Responses. Aviation, Space, and Environmental

Medicine, 75 (6), pp. 539-542. PMID: 15198281.

[13] Leach, J. (2005). Cognitive Paralysis in an Emergency:

The Role of the Supervisory Attentional System.

Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 76 (2), pp.

134-136. PMID: 15742830.

[14] Harbst, G., & Madsen, F. (1993). The behavior of

passengers in a critical situation on board a passenger

vessel or ferry (Technical report). Copenhagen, Denmark:

Danish Investment Foundation.

[15] Nevalainen, J. (2015). Modeling passenger ship

evacuation from a passenger's perspective.

https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:aalto-201510164736

[16] Nasso, C., Bertagna, S., Mauro, F., Marinò, A., & Bucci,

V. (2019). Simplified and advanced approaches for

evacuation analysis of passenger ships in the early stage

of design. Brodogradnja: Teorija i praksa brodogradnje i

pomorske tehnike, 70(3), 43-59.

http://dx.doi.org/10.21278/brod70303

[17] Stefanidis, F., Stefanou, E., Boulougouris, E.,

Karagianndis, L., Sotiralis, P., Annetis, E., ... & Veltsistas,

P. (2023). SafePASS: A new chapter for passenger ship

evacuation and marine emergency response.

288

Transportation Research Procedia, 72, 3885-3892.

DOI:10.1016/j.trpro.2023.11.493

[18] Cornwell, B., Harmon, W., Mason, M., Merz, B., &

Lampe, M. (2001). Panic or situational constraints? The

case of the M/V Estonia. International Journal of Mass

Emergencies & Disasters, 19(1), 5-25.

https://doi.org/10.1177/028072700101900101

[19] Guarin, L., Hifi, Y., & Vassalos, D. (2014). Passenger ship

evacuation–design and verification. In Virtual,

Augmented and Mixed Reality. Applications of Virtual

and Augmented Reality: 6th International Conference,

VAMR 2014, Held as Part of HCI International 2014,

Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 22-27, 2014, Proceedings,

Part II 6 (pp. 354-365). Springer International Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07464-1_33

[20] International Maritime Organization. (2002). Guidelines

for evacuation analysis for new and existing passenger

ships (MSC/Circ.1033).

[21] Łozowicka, D. (2021). The design of the arrangement of

evacuation routes on a passenger ship using the method

of genetic algorithms. Plos one, 16(8), e0255993.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255993

[22] Łozowicka, D. (2012). Organization of evacuation from

passenger ships–a concept of safety enhancement.

Zeszyty Naukowe/Akademia Morska w Szczecinie, 110-

114.

[23] Fang, S., Liu, Z., Wang, X., Cao, Y., & Yang, Z. (2024).

Dynamic analysis of emergency evacuation in a rolling

passenger ship using a two-layer social force model.

Expert Systems with Applications, 247,

123310.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.123310

[24] Wang, L., Zhou, P., Gu, J., & Li, Y. (2024). Numerical

Simulation of Passenger Evacuation Process for a Cruise

Ship Considering Inclination and Rolling. Journal of

Marine Science and Engineering, 12(2), 336.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12020336

[25] Wang, X., Liu, Z., Loughney, S., Yang, Z., Wang, Y., &

Wang, J. (2022). Numerical analysis and staircase layout

optimisation for a Ro-Ro passenger ship during

emergency evacuation. Reliability Engineering & System

Safety, 217, 108056.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.108056

[26] Lei, W., & Tai, C. (2019). Effect of different staircase and

exit layouts on occupant evacuation. Safety science, 118,

258-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.030

[27] Bellas, R. A., Martínez, J., Rivera, I., Touza, R., Gómez,

M., & Carreño, R. (2020). Analysis of naval ship

evacuation using stochastic simulation models and

experimental data sets. Computer Modeling in

Engineering & Sciences, 122(3), 970-994. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32604/cmes.2020.07530

[28] Ha, S., Ku, N.-K., Roh, M.-I., & Lee, K.-Y. (2012). Cell-

based evacuation simulation considering human

behavior in a passenger ship. Ocean Engineering, 53, 138–

152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2012.05.019

[29] Liu, L., Zhang, H., Zhan, Y., Su, Y., & Zhang, C. (2022).

Intelligent optimization method for the evacuation routes

of dense crowds on cruise ships. Simulation Modelling

Practice and Theory, 117, 102496.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2022.102496

[30] Park, K.-P., Ham, S.-H., & Ha, S. (2015). Validation of

advanced evacuation analysis on passenger ships using

experimental scenario and data of full-scale evacuation.

Computers in Industry, 71, 103–115.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2015.03.009

[31] Yue, Y., Gai, W., & Deng, Y. (2022). Influence factors on

the passenger evacuation capacity of cruise ships:

Modeling and simulation of full-scale evacuation

incorporating information dissemination. Process Safety

and Environmental Protection, 157, 466–483.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2021.11.010