국제협력사업 추진을 위한 해사안전기술 평가 연구

Evaluation of Maritime Safety Technology for Official Development Assistance (ODA)

  • 오세웅 (한국해양연구원 해양시스템안전연구소) ;
  • 전태병 (한국해양연구원 해양시스템안전연구소) ;
  • 이문진 (한국해양연구원 해양시스템안전연구소) ;
  • 서상현 (한국해양연구원 해양시스템안전연구소) ;
  • 조동오 (한국해양대학교 국제해양문제연구소)
  • Oh, Se-Woong (Marine Safety & Pollution Response Research Department, MOERI/KORDI) ;
  • Jeon, Tae-Byung (Marine Safety & Pollution Response Research Department, MOERI/KORDI) ;
  • Lee, Moon-Jin (Marine Safety & Pollution Response Research Department, MOERI/KORDI) ;
  • Suh, Sang-Hyun (Marine Safety & Pollution Response Research Department, MOERI/KORDI) ;
  • Cho, Dong-Oh (Institute of International Maritime Affairs, Korea Maritime University)
  • 투고 : 2010.01.05
  • 심사 : 2010.03.24
  • 발행 : 2010.03.31

초록

국제해사기구(IMO)와 세계 해운계에서는 해양환경 보호 및 해상안전 확보를 위해 각종 국제협약을 시행하고 있으나 개발도상국에서는 이를 이행하지 못해 해양사고의 주요 요인이 되고 있다. IMO A그룹 이사국으로 부상한 우리나라는 해사안전기술 이전실적이 마마하여 해사안전기술 분야의 국제협력 사업 발굴 및 추진이 요구되고 있다. 국제협력 사업을 추진하기 위해서는 해사안전 분야의 중요도가 높고 개발도상국에서 필요도가 높은 기술을 선정하여 추진하여야 하는 등 선택과 집중이 요구된다. 따라서 해사안전기술의 우선순위 도출이 필요하며 이를 위해서는 해사안전기술의 평가요인을 도출하고 그 요인에 따라 대상 해사안전기술을 평가하여 우선순위를 결정하여야 한다. 이때 평가요인 간의 중요도를 나타내는 중요 가중치가 평가요인마다 상이하며, 요인간에 종속성이 발생하므로 이를 고려하여야 한다. 본 연구에서는 해사안전기술 평가요인으로 해사안전기술성숙도, 국제협력사업추진가능성, 해사안전기술중요도의 세 그룹으로 구분하고 각 그룹별로 세부 요인을 도출하였다. 또한 평가요인 간의 중요 가중치와 상관 가중치를 고려하기 위해 Fuzzy AHP 기법과 극한확률 이론을 사용한 평가모델을 개발하였다. 본 평가모델의 적용을 위해 해양안전정보 분야에 9개의 해사안전 기술을 선정하고 각 기술의 평가 점수를 계산하였다. 적용 결과 전자해도관련기술이 0.0139로 가장 우선순위가 높았으며 선박모니터링기술과 유류유출확산예측및대응기술이 각각 0.0133, 0.0132로 계산되었다.

IMO(International Maritime Organization) and the Shipping World rave complied with various kinds of international regulations for maritime safety and marine environmental protection, but the main reason of maritime accidents is that developing countries cannot implement maritime safety related regulations. Although Korea has been a member of the "A group" council of IMO, maritime technology transfer records of Korea are not good. To promote the project of official development assistance in Korea, it is required to select the technology which has a high degree of importance in the fields of maritime safety and has a high degree of demand on the transfer to developing countries, and to concentrate on the selected technology. So, it is necessary to draw valuation factors for maritime safety technology and to decide the priority in order among maritime safety technologies on the basis of valuation factors. Because the weights which show the degree of importance among valuation factors are different from factor to factor, interdependent relationship between factors should be considered on evaluation. In this study, the valuation factors were divided into three groups as the maturity of maritime safety technology, the promotion probability of projects and the degree of importance of technology, and the detailed factors of each group were drawn. A model which used Fuzzy AHP and limiting probability to consider the weights of importance and correlation among valuation factors was developed. To adopt this model, nine types of maritime safety technology in the field of maritime safety information were selected and points were scored for each technology through evaluation. In conclusion, first, ENC related technology was scored to be the highest as 0.0139. Second, the point of ship monitoring technology was scored as 0.0133. Last, oil spill response technology was scored as 0.0132.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 지충열(2008), 상관관계를 고려한 Fuzzy AHP 의사결정 에 관한 연구, 한양대학교 석과과정 논문, p. 38.
  2. 한국해양연구원(2008), 해사안전 기술이전을 통한 국제협력 활성화 기획연구, 국토해양부 기획연구 보고서, pp. 74-136.
  3. Bayazit, O.(2005), Use of AHP in decision-making for flexible manufacturing systems, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management Vol.16, No.17, pp. 808-819. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380510626204
  4. Chang, Da-Yong(1996), Applications of the Extent Analysis Method on fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp. 649-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2
  5. Eddi, W. L. and L. Hang(2001), Analytic hierarchy process, an approach to determine measured for business performance, Measuring Business Performance, Vol. 5(3), pp. 30-36. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005864
  6. Elkarmi, F. and I. Mustafa(1993), Increasing the utilization of solar energy technologies(SET) in Fordan, Energy Policy, Vol.21, pp. 978-984. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(93)90186-J
  7. Kablan, M. M.(2004), Decision support for energy conservation promotion : an analytic hierarchy process approach, Energy Policy 32, pp. 1151-1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00078-8
  8. Kahraman, C., U. Cebeci, and D. Ruan(2004), Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP : The case of Trkey, International Journal of Economics, Vol. 87, pp. 171-184.
  9. Kwong, C. K. and H. Bai(2003), Determining the importance weights for the customer requirements in QFD using a fuzzy AHP with an extent analysis approach, IIE Transactions, Vol. 35, pp. 619-626. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170304355
  10. Mead, L. and J. Sarkis(2002), A conceptual model for selecting and evaluating third-party reverse logistics providers, Supply Chain Management : An International Journal, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 283-295. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540210447728
  11. Yang, J. and H. Lee(1997), An AHP decision model for facility location selection, Facilities Vol. 15, No. 9/10, pp. 241-254. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632779710178785