271

1 INTRODUCTION

The companies in the maritime sector are operating in

both domestic and international trade with significant

contributions to the prosperity of the worldwide

economy [1]. This can be identified from the fact that

international shipping is responsible for more than

90% of all business activities throughout the world [2].

Moreover, maritime shipping is more secure, cost-

effective, energy-efficient, and ecologically friendly

compared to other commercial transportation modes.

This can be associated with the broad international

safety laws implemented by the International Maritime

Organization (IMO) which is in order of enforcing

shipping safety conditions [3]. The focus on safety is

due to destructive maritime accidents such as ship

collisions, fires, groundings, and oil spills [4] with a

serious impact on the sustainability of international

trade and substantial loss of properties. For example,

the Amoco Cadiz oil spill and the grounding of the

Aegean Sea were reported to have disastrous

consequences on the environment as indicated by the

leakage of an incredible 230,000 t of crude oil into the

sea during the spill, resulting in extensive damage to

marine ecosystems, habitats, and coastal areas [5].

A well-functioning inspection procedure is

important before ships sail in order to minimize the

number of maritime incidents, guarantee safety, and

improve the preservation of the environment. The

procedure is expected to be conducted with the

participation of the shipowner, ship manager, and Port

State Control Officer (PSCO) [6]. This has led relevant

authorities in different countries of the world to

establish PSC to improve maritime transportation

safety by evaluating the advantages of current

Identification of Trends in Port State Control

Detention: A Comparative Analysis of Two Regional

MoU Agreements

A. Junaidi

, H. Yudo

& H. Ab-Samat

University of Science Malaysia, Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia

Diponegoro University, Semarang, Java, Indonesia

ABSTRACT: Port State Control (PSC) is the inspection of foreign ships in national ports based on relevant

international conventions and regulations. This study aimed to construct a comprehensive analysis framework

to identify PSC detention trends by comparing data from two regional agreements for a selected period. The

objective was achieved by collecting detention data based on the Paris and Tokyo MoU for the 2018 to 2022 period.

The data were analyzed traditionally using statistical methods to determine PSC detention trends with a focus on

some factors. The results for Paris MoU showed that the highest percentage detention based on flag registry was

Panama at 19.75%, recognized organization was class BV at 16.71%, type of ship was general cargo at 46.86%, ship

more than 25 years old were 45.52% and deficiency related to ISM was 16.69%. Meanwhile, the analysis of the

data related to Tokyo MoU showed Panama at 30.22%, class NKK at 22.61%, bulk carrier vessels at 39.22%, 15

and 19 years old at 29.82% and deficiency related to fire safety was 21.66%, respectively. The results were expected

to provide important insights into the maritime industry, especially for ship managers and shipping companies

as well as future studies related to PSC.

http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 20

Number 2

June 2026

DOI: 10.12716/1001.20.02.03

272

inspection laws for safety and determining areas in

need of more development [7] [8]. PSC is the process of

inspecting foreign ships in domestic ports to guarantee

appropriate staffing and management in compliance

with international regulations as well as ascertain the

conditions and equipment meet requirements. [9].

The first PSC structure was designed through the

Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed

in 1982. This was followed by the approval of

"resolution A.682 (17) on Regional co-operation for the

control of ships and discharges" in November 1991 by

the IMO to establish regional PSC globally in order to

reduce substandard vessels [10]. The process led to the

formulation of nine regional PSC MoU agreements

including the Paris MoU (1982), the Black Sea MoU

(2000), the Mediterranean Sea MoU (1997), the Indian

Ocean MoU (1998), the Persian Gulf (Riyadh MoU-

2004), West and Central Africa (Abuja MoU-1999),

Latin America (Vina Del Mar Agreement-1992), Asia-

Pacific (Tokyo MoU-1993), and the Caribbean region

(Caribbean MoU-1996). Moreover, the tenth PSC

regime was developed and implemented by the US

Coast Guard. The IMO is designated as the observer for

all regional PSC administrations due to its status as an

international organization. The representatives of these

agreements normally attend the IMO meetings to

provide comprehensive annual reports to the Sub-

Committee on Implementation of IMO Instruments (III

Sub-Committee) to be subsequently used in assessing

the adherence to the required standards [11].

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

PSC is an inspection system implemented to stop

inferior ships from sailing to the international waters

towards avoiding the violation of relevant maritime

laws. According to Procedures on PSC, a ship is

considered substandard when the crew fails to adhere

to the safe manning document or the hull, machinery,

equipment, or operational safety significantly falls

short of the standards mandated by the applicable

regulation [12]. Foreign ships are required to be

inspected in ports to guarantee maritime pollution

prevention and shipping safety. This shows that ports

are very important in completing the international

agreements and rules set by flag states. The conduct of

a PSC inspections reduced the number of non-

compliant ships towards securing shipping and

maritime environmental safety [9].

Several studies have been conducted on PSC

inspection with a particular study discovered to have

focused on four main areas including the selection of

ships for PSC inspection, the new inspection regime

(NIR), the identification of findings or deficiencies

during inspection, and detention of ships under PSC

inspection [13]. Another examined data from the

Indian Ocean MoU over five years to explore the

frequency of deficiencies and the probability of

detention. The results showed that vessel age,

recognized organization, and inspection location

influenced detentions, while the ship's flag and type

did not significantly contribute [14].

The maritime industry has historically been

significantly impacted by PSC ship detentions which

cause delays in the delivery of cargo, thereby harming

ship managers and operators. Ship owners can file a

lawsuit to recover the loss due to the higher running

costs associated with the detention [5]. This problem

has led to preliminary studies on the assessment of ship

detention using several methods. An example was the

focus on PSC deficiencies using the Bayesian network

model [15] which was often used for data analysis and

later combined with the TOPSIS as a novel method to

control ship detention risk in PSC inspections [16].

Moreover, Chuah et al. [17]analyzed the variables

influencing ship detention using a Bayesian network

model and reported ship type, flag state, authorized

body, inspection body, and age of the ship as the most

significant. Yang et al. [18] also developed a data-

driven Bayesian Network (BN) model using detention

records from the Paris MoU covering January 2015 to

March 2022 to shorten the length of incarceration and

increase the effectiveness of inspection policies.

Meanwhile, Akyurek & Bolat [19] proposed another

method by using the Analytical Hierarchy Process

(AHP) to assess PSC detention ranking based on the

Paris MoU.

Grey rational analysis (GRA) model with improved

entropy weight was applied to determine the primary

cause of ship detention using data gathered by Tokyo

MOU in port states of the Asia-Pacific region [8].

Moreover, the same data were further subjected to

additional preprocessing to determine factors

influencing ship detention, specifically in ports of

Malaysia [20]. Y. Chen et al. [21] also identified serious

flaws leading to vessel detentions using Association

Rules and PSC inspection data from 2014 to 2020.

Furthermore, the critical deficiencies associated with

ship detention were identified using criteria interaction

through the inter-criteria correlation (CRITIC) method

based on Tokyo MoU and Paris MoU data [22].

Another study collected data covering 2018-2021 from

the Black Sea MoU Region to determine the most

influential deficiency causing ship detentions both

before and during the pandemic using the Entropy-

based Grey Relation Analysis (GRA) method [23]. Rule

mining techniques were also applied by Ismail et al.

[20] in extensive data analysis to provide

countermeasures and references for ship management

toward reducing or preventing detention during PSC

inspection. In other study focus on trend of safety

management system on board [24] and in the

hierarchical management system for Container Vessel

[25], as well as the fire safety analysis onboard

Passenger Ships [26].

The review showed that none of these studies

identified a PSC detention trend to obtain a full

summary for a specific period and MoU region

especially with comparison on between two regional

MoU agreements. Therefore, this study thoroughly

examined PSC detention data from the Paris MoU and

Tokyo MoU covering 2018 to 2022 in order to

determine the association between the factor and type

of detainable deficiencies, ship type, age, flag state, and

gross tonnage including the port of inspection. The

response to the questionnaire related to PSC detention

was also collected from experts to obtain opinions on

PSC detention trends.

273

3 MATERIALS AND METHOD

PSC inspections are normally performed in nearly all

maritime regions to guarantee foreign ships visiting

ports are fit to sail. This is necessary to avoid pollution

risk, maintain a healthy and safe environment,

ascertain only high-standard ships operated by

permitted trade personnel are in the sea, and confirm

compliance with national and international laws and

regulations.

The discovery of major faults is expected to cause

delays in order to correct the defects before departure.

It is important to state that the Paris MoU consists of 28

participating maritime administrations and covers the

waters of the European Coastal States and the North

Atlantic basin from North America to Europe.

Meanwhile, the Tokyo MoU region consists of a total

of 21 maritime authorities in the Asia-Pacific region.

This study was conducted by analyzing the data from

both MoUs covering 2018 to 2022 to evaluate the

detention trend with a focus on the type of vessel, flag,

the age of vessel, the number of deficiencies, port of

inspection, and the type of finding. The detention list

on the Tokyo MoU website is presented in the

following Figure 1. Furthermore, the data collected

were analyzed using the computerized method to

determine and compare the detention trend between

the two MoUs. This was achieved through factors

reported in several studies to be influencing detention

such as flag of registry, type of ship, age of ship,

classification society, and inspection authority. The

seven factors considered to present primary risk

included inspecting authority, classification society,

type of ship, flag of ship, age, gross tonnage, and

number of findings. These were added to several forms

of detain deficiency and were investigated with the

results presented in the form of percentages.

Figure 1. The detention list on the Tokyo MoU

(https://www.tokyo-mou.org/inspections_detentions)

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The IMO conventions require administrative

inspections of foreign ships calling at ports to assure

compliance and this is usually conducted by a qualified

marine inspector from flag state authority. The

suspicion that the master or crew is not aware of

important onboard procedures or that the ship or

equipment does not meet specified international

requirements usually leads to a more complete

investigation by inspectors. The master and owner are

required to rectify all findings and deficiencies before

the ship can sail again. However, every precaution

should be made to avoid detaining a ship longer than

necessary during the process. This is because of the

significant impact of detention on the maritime

industry, especially for ship managers or operators,

due to cargo delivery delays. Some of the influencing

factors include the reason for detention, flag state, type

of vessel, age, recognized organization (RO), and

inspection authority.

PSC detention record for 2018 to 2022 showed that

a total of 2737 vessels were detained under Paris MoU

while the figure for Tokyo MoU was 3659. This showed

that a high number of vessels were detained due to the

Tokyo MoU compared to the Paris MoU. Moreover,

Panama had the highest detention based on the flag

registry as indicated by approximately 19.75% in the

Paris MoU and 30.22% in the Tokyo MoU. The flag

registry is an important factor for PSC inspectors in

ship selection or target ship identification. The results

further showed that Portugal was the inspection

authority with the highest number of detained vessels

in the Paris MoU as observed in the 16.31% recorded

while China was the highest in the Tokyo MoU with

32.66%. The classification society as the Recognized

Organization (RO) was also considered important in

maritime business, especially about ship safety and

seaworthiness. The results showed that Bureau Veritas

(BV) has the highest number of vessels detained in

Paris MoU with approximately 16.71% while Nippon

Kaiji Kyokai (NK Class) had 22.61% in Tokyo MoU.

The detailed results related to these factors are

presented in Table 1 as well as Figures 2, 3, and 4.

Table 1. The detailed trend on ship detention for Paris MoU

and Tokyo MoU

Variable

Paris MoU

Tokyo MoU

Factor

Distribution

Factor

Distribution

Flag

Panama

19.75%

Panama

30.22%

Liberia

8.17%

Liberia

10.65%

Marshall Islands

6.83%

Marshall Islands

7.99%

Malta

6.68%

Belize

7.37%

Antigua and

Barbuda

4.38%

Togo

5.00%

Comoros

3.45%

Sierra Leone

4.77%

Togo

3.12%

Hong Kong, China

4.15%

Cyprus

2.00%

Singapore

2.99%

Maldova

1.71%

Vietnam

2.40%

Others

43.91%

Others

24.46%

Inspection

Authority

Portugal

16.31%

China

32.66%

Germany

7.83%

Australia

21.97%

England

7.16%

Japan

9.70%

Spain

5.47%

Russian

9.62%

Netherlands

5.25%

Indonesia

8.01%

Greece

4.15%

The Korean

Republic of

7.95%

Russia

4.15%

Singapore

2.43%

Belgium

3.78%

Canada

2.16%

Canada

3.56%

Malaysia

1.18%

Others

42.32%

Others

4.32%

Bureau Veritas

16.71%

Nippon Kaiji Kyokai

22.61%

Det Norske Veritas

14.73%

Det Norske Veritas

11.57%

Nippon Kaiji Kyokai

12.99%

Bureau Veritas

9.43%

Registro Italiano

Navale

10.90%

Lloyd`s Register

7.66%

Lloyd's Register

8.07%

American Bureau of

Shipping

6.19%

American Bureau of

Shipping

5.21%

Korean Register

4.85%

Russian Register of

Shipping

4.52%

Registro Italiano

Navale

3.46%

274

China Classification

Society

1.57%

China Classification

Society

2.86%

Indian Register of

Shipping

1.37%

Russian Register of

Shipping

0.82%

Korean Register of

Shipping

1.17%

Indian Register of

Shipping

0.41%

Others

22.76%

Others

30.17%

Type Of

Vassel

General

cargo/multipurpose

46.86%

Bulk carrier

39.22%

Bulk carrier

23.68%

General

cargo/multipurpose

30.69%

Container

6.93%

Container

10.45%

Oil tanker/Chemical

tanker

5.71%

Oil tanker/Chemical

tanker

6.40%

Chemical tanker

1.67%

Chemical tanker

3.53%

Gas Carrier

0.88%

Gas Carrier

1.09%

Passenger Ship

0.57%

Passenger Ship

0.44%

Other

13.70%

Others

8.18%

Age

0-4

0.47%

0-4

0.55%

5-9

4.93%

5-9

7.13%

10-14

16.59%

10-14

25.87%

15-19

21.04%

15-19

29.82%

20-24

11.44%

20-24

12.28%

>25

45.52%

>25

24.36%

Gross

Tonnage

0-5.000

47.31%

0-5.000

27.83%

5.000-10.000

14.14%

5.000-10.000

15.14%

10.000-20.000

11.09%

10.000-20.000

10.28%

20.000-50.000

22.52%

20.000-50.000

32.70%

50.000-100.000

4.79%

50.000-100.000

11.62%

>100.000

0.15%

>100.000

2.43%

Number of

Deficiency

1-5

34.70%

1-5

91.78%

6-10

25.35%

6-10

7.28%

>10

39.95%

>10

0.94%

Figure 2. Flag registry data for Paris and Tokyo MoU.

The ship type with the highest detention in Paris

MoU was found to be general cargo or multipurpose

with 46.86% followed by bulk carrier at 23.68% and

container at 6.93% while passenger vessel had the

lowest with 0.57%. The observation from Tokyo MoU

showed that bulk carriers were the highest with 39.22%

followed by general cargo or multipurpose at 30.69%

and container at 10.45% while passenger vessels had

the lowest with 0.44. Moreover, the ships detained

based on age showed that those more than 25 years

were the highest in Paris MoU with 45.52% and the

lowest were 0-4 years old with 0.47%. The data from

Tokyo MoU showed that ships aged between 15-19

years were detained more as indicated by

approximately 29.82% while those aged 0-4 years were

the lowest with 0.55%. The trend was observed not to

be much different compared to the data from the Paris

MoU.

Figure 3. Inspection authority data for Paris and Tokyo MoU

Figure 4. Recognized organization data for Paris and Tokyo

MoU

275

Gross tonnage is an important factor in the analysis

because it shows the size of the ship. The results

showed that the size with the highest detention based

on Paris MoU was up to 5,000 with 47.31% while the

lowest for those having more than 100,000 with 0.15%.

This was slightly different from the observation in

Tokyo MoU where 20,000 to 50,000 GT had the highest

with 32.70% while those having more than 100,000 GT

had the lowest with 2.43%. The trend showed that the

rate was not significantly different for big-size vessels

when compared to the Paris MoU. Moreover,

deficiency or finding is proof that the ship does not

comply with international regulations and is

considered one of the important reasons for detention.

It is important to state that the number of deficiencies

is probably not the main reason for detention but is

considered very important. The data from the Paris

MoU indicated that more than 10 deficiencies were the

most common reason for detention as indicated by the

39.95% estimated. The trend was different from Tokyo

MoU where the highest was recorded for up to 5

deficiencies at 91.75% as presented in Table 1 as well as

Figures 5 and 6.

Figure 5. The relationship between type of vessel, GT, age,

and no. of deficiency in Paris MoU.

Figure 6. The relationship between type of vessel, GT, age,

and no. of deficiency in Tokyo MoU

Tokyo MoU is the second largest regional

agreement after Paris MoU and the data obtained

showed that fire safety measures were the highest

reasons for detention at 21.86% followed by pollution

prevention at 14.89%, and ISM at 13.12% while the

lowest was radio communication with 2.63%. The

trend showed a difference in the highest deficiency for

both agreements while the least was similar. Moreover,

the analysis of the annual variation showed that fire

safety measures appeared stable at approximately 22%

despite a decrease to 16.85% in 2021 and a consequent

increase to 22.80% in 2022. Meanwhile, pollution

prevention was stable at 15% and only decreased to

12.13% in 2022. The data for ISM showed an increase

from 12.25% in 2018 to 13.73% in 2022 and even had a

quite significant increment in 2021 at 14.51%. The trend

showed that ISM deficiency generally experienced a

continuous annual increase both in Paris and Tokyo

MoU. This shows that the factor needs special attention

in association to shipping safety and PSC inspections.

The type of deficiency is another important factor in

addition to the number or frequency of occurrence due

to the usage in deciding on the detention of ships

through PSC. Several deficiencies could lead to

detention but the data from the Paris MoU indicated

ISM to be the highest at 16.69% followed by fire safety

measures at 15.75% and safety of navigation at 13.62%

while radio communication had the lowest at 1.25%.

The observation of the annual variation showed that

ISM increased from 14.76% in 2018 to 19.12% in 2022

and fire safety measures from 14.17% to 17.54% while

safety of navigation declined from 13.71% to 12.83%

despite an increase of 15.84% in 2020 and the radio

communication experienced a continuous decline as

presented in Figures 7 & 8.

Figure 7. The chart on type of deficiency in Paris MoU.

Figure 8. The chart on type of deficiency in Tokyo MoU.

276

The analysis further showed that ships registered

under the Panama flag constituted the highest

percentage of detention with 19.75% recorded in Paris

MoU and 30.22% in Tokyo MoU. The port inspection

authority that detained the highest number of ships in

Paris Mou was Portugal with 16.31% and China in

Tokyo MoU with 32.66%. Moreover, the recognized

organization (RO) or classification society with the

highest number of ships detained was Bureau Veritas

(BV) for Paris MoU with approximately 16.71% and

Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (NK Class) in Tokyo MoU with

22.61%. The results also showed that the type of ship

most detained was general cargo or multipurpose in

Paris MoU with 46.86% and bulk carrier in Tokyo MoU

with 39.22% while the least was passenger vessel at

0.57% and 0.44% respectively. Some previous studies

mentioned the age of the ship as the main factor for

ship detention and it was discovered that those

between 15 and 19 years were mostly detained in

Tokyo MoU with 29.82% and those more than 25 years

old in Paris MoU. The results further showed that the

ships with gross tonnage (GT) up to 5,000 had the

highest detention in Paris MoU with 47.31% while

those at 20,000 to 50,000 GT were identified in Tokyo

MoU with 32.70%.

5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

In conclusion, the thorough analysis conducted on ship

detention variables showed useful points of reference

to ensure standard operating procedures, safe sailing

before departure, and PSC efficiency during

inspection. PSC inspections based on both Paris and

Tokyo MoU regions were investigated with a focus on

vessel age, type of vessel, flag registry, inspection

authority, gross tonnage, recognized organization,

number of deficiencies or findings, and type of

deficiency or finding. The observations from the two

regions were further compared to identify the PSC

detention trend. The results showed that the number of

ships detained between 2018 and 2022 was higher in

Tokyo MoU with 3659 compared to 2737 in Paris MoU.

A deficiency or finding is proof that the ship does

not comply with international regulations and this is

one of the reasons for detention. The data from the

Paris MoU showed that more 10 than deficiencies were

the most common reasons for detention in the Paris

MoU at 39.95% while the Tokyo MoU indicated up to 5

at 91.75%. Furthermore, ISM was found to be the

deficiency causing the highest detention in Paris MoU

for the study period with 16.69% followed by fire safety

measures at 15.75% and safety of navigation at 13.62%.

The trend was different in Tokyo MoU where fire

safety measures were the highest with 21.86% followed

by pollution prevention at 14.89% and ISM at 13.12%.

This showed that ISM deficiency was not the highest

percentage in Tokyo MoU but increased from 12.25%

in 2018 to 13.73% in 2022 with the most significant

increment recorded in 2021 to be 14.51%. The trend

showed that ISM deficiency generally increased

continuously in both Paris and Tokyo MoU for the

study period.

Further investigation is recommended on the key

factors and deficiencies causing ship detention during

PSC inspection. This is necessary due to the report of

several studies that ship detention has a significant

impact on the maritime industry, especially for ship

managers or operators, due to delays in cargo delivery.

Moreover, a specific analysis method should be

developed to obtain more accurate and credible results

apart from Bayesian networks and the Hierarchical

Analytical Process (AHP), specifically to analyze PSC

detention data from different regional agreements.

Future studies are also expected to discuss the

possibilities and steps to prevent or reduce the risk of

ship detention during PSC inspection.

REFERENCES

[1] Oloruntobi, O., Mokhtar, K., Mohd Rozar, N., Gohari, A.,

Asif, S., & Chuah, L. F. (2003). Effective technologies and

practices for reducing pollution in warehouses - A

review. Clean Eng Technol, 13.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2023.100622.

[2] Chuah, L. F., Mohd Salleh, N. H., Osnin, N. A., Alcaide, J.

I., Abdul Majid, M. H., Abdullah, A. A., Bokhari, A., A

Jalil, E. E., & Klemeš, J. J. (2021). Profiling Malaysian ship

registration and seafarers for streamlining future

Malaysian shipping governance. Aust. J. Marit. Ocean

Aff, 13, pp. 225–261.

https://doi.org/10.1080/18366503.2021.1878981.

[3] Bai, M., Tian, Y., Yu, Y., Zheng, Q., Zhang, X., Zheng, W.,

& Zhang, Z. (2018). Application of a hydroxyl-radical-

based disinfection system for ballast water.

Chemosphere, 208, pp.541–549.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.06.010.

[4] Chuah, L. F., Chew, K. W., Bokhari, A., Mubashir, M., &

Show, P. L. (2022). Biodegradation of crude oil in

seawater by using a consortium of symbiotic bacteria.

Environ Res, 213.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113721.

[5] Chuah, L. F., Mokhtar, K., Bakar, A. A., Othman, M. R.,

Osman, N. H., Bokhari, A., Mubashir, M., Abdullah, M.

A., & Hasan, M. (2022). Marine environment and

maritime safety assessment using Port State Control

database. Chemosphere, 304, p. 135245.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135245.

[6] Dock, A., Linders, J., David, M., Gollasch, S., David, J., &

Ziegler, G. (2020). Are workers on board vessels involved

with chemicals from treated ballast water sufficiently

protected? – A decadal perspective and risk assessment.

Chemosphere, 247.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.125824.

[7] Heij, C., Bijwaard, G. E., & Knapp, S. (2011). Ship

inspection strategies: Effects on maritime safety and

environmental protection. Transport Res D-TR E, 16, pp.

42–48, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.07.006.

[8] Liou, S. tzong, Liu, C. P., Chang, C. C., & Yen, D. C. (2011).

Restructuring Taiwan’s port state control inspection

authority. Gov Inf Q, 28, pp. 36–46.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.05.005.

[9] Chen, J., Zhang, S., Xu, L., Wan, Z., Fei, Y., & Zheng, T.

(2019). Identification of key factors of ship detention

under Port State Control. Mar Policy, 102, pp. 21–27.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.12.020.

[10] Şanlıer, Ş. (2020). Analysis of port state control inspection

data: The Black Sea Region. Marine Policy, 112.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103757.

[11] Xiao, Y., Qi, G., Jin, M., Yuen, K. F., Chen, Z., & Li, K. X.

(2011). Efficiency of Port State Control inspection

regimes: A comparative study. Transport Policy, 106, pp.

165–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.04.003.

[12] International Maritime Organization, Port State Control,

(2019).

https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/msas/pages/portstatec

ontrol.aspx

[13] Junaidi, A., Yudo, H., & Ab-Samat, H. (2024).

Identification of Data Analysis Methods and Focus

277

Trends in Port State Control Inspections: A

Comprehensive Literature Review. Int. J. Technol, 15, p.

179. https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v15i1.6492

[14] Cariou, P., Mejia, M. Q., & Wolff, F. C. (2008). On the

effectiveness of port state control inspections. Transport

E-Log, 44, pp. 491–503.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2006.11.005

[15] Fan, L., Zhang, Z., Yin, J., & Wang, X. (2019). The

efficiency improvement of port state control based on

ship accident Bayesian networks. Proceedings of the

Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of

Risk and Reliability, 233, pp. 71–83.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X18811199

[16] Yang, Z., Wan, C., Yang, Z., & Yu, Q. (2021). Using

Bayesian network-based TOPSIS to aid dynamic port

state control detention risk control decision. Reliab. Eng.

Syst. Saf , 213, p. 107784.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107784

[17] Chuah, L. F., Mohd Rof’ie, N. R., Mohd Salleh, N. H.,

Abu Bakar, A., Oloruntobi, O., Othman, M. R., Mohamed

Fazlee, U. S., Mubashir, M., & Asif, S. (2023). Analyzing

the influencing factors of Port State Control for a cleaner

environment via Bayesian network model. Clean Eng

Technol, 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2023.100636

[18] Yang, Z., Yu, Q., Yang, Z., & Wan, C. (2024). A data-

driven Bayesian model for evaluating the duration of

detention of ships in PSC inspections. Transport Res E-

Log, 181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2023.103371

[19] Akyurek, E., & Bolat, P. (2021). Ranking port state control

detention remarks: professional Judgement and spatial

overview. Eur Transp Res Rev, 13.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-021-00480-8

[20] Ismail, M., Suhrab, R., Abdullah, M., Sayed, A.,

Muniandy, T. D., Faizal, A., Fuad, A., Said, M. H., &

Ahmed, T. (2022). Ship Detention Factors Under Port

State Control in Malaysia. Specialusis Ugdymas / Special

Education, 2022, p. 1.

[21] Chen, Y., Lou, N., Liu, G., Luan, Y., & Jiang, H. (2022).

Risk analysis of ship detention defects based on

association rules. Mar Policy, 142, p. 105123.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105123

[22] Zhu, J. H., Yang, Q., & Jiang, J. (2023). Identifying crucial

deficiency categories influencing ship detention: A

method of combining cloud model and prospect theory.

Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf, 230.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2022.108949

[23] Çelik Maşalacı, B., & Çakır, E. (2023). Differences in

deficiency types causing ship detentions at the Black Sea

Region during the Covid-19 pandemic and pre-

pandemic. Mar Policy, 151.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105553.

[24] Junaidi, A., Yudo, H., & Ab-Samat, H. (2024). Identify the

Trends on Maritime Safety Management System Studies:

A Review. TransNav, 18(4), 775–784.

https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.18.04.03.

[25] L. L. Nikolaieva, T. Y. Omelchenko, and O. V. Haichenia.

(2024). “Hierarchical Management System for Container

Vessels Automated Cargo Handling,” Journal of Eta

Maritime Science, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 25–35, doi:

10.4274/jems.2023.32858

[26] T. Aycı, B. Barlas, and A. Ölçer. (2024). “Fire Safety

Analysis Onboard Passenger Ships by using Fire

Dynamics Simulations: Case Study of a Turkish Domestic

Passenger Ship,” Journal of Eta Maritime Science, vol. 12,

no. 2, pp. 224–236, Jun, doi: 10.4274/jems.2024.56514