Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative study of hazardous material transportation security issues in Flanders and in Apulia

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Security Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article investigates security practices within hazmat production and transport companies in two European regions, Apulia in Italy and Flanders in Belgium. A literature review was carried out to highlight the main theoretical hazmat transport security approaches. This led to develop some hypotheses on theoretical ‘ideal’ security practices in hazmat transport operations. To compare the theoretical insights regarding security approaches within dangerous goods transportation with real industrial practices, and to validate the hypotheses, a questionnaire was drafted. Survey results allowed to ascertain a partial implementation of ideal practices by the firms and provided insights in the existing similarities and differences between the two heterogeneous European regions. The study results led to conclusions and recommendations for European policymakers and for practitioners, in order to enhance current security habits with respect to hazmat transportation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Between 100 and 125 per cent with respect to the EU27 average.

  2. Between 50 and 75 per cent with respect to the EU27 average.

  3. The answer of one firm was missing.

  4. It should be noted that both vulnerability assessments and threat analyses are asked about (cfr. Questions 13 and 14 of the questionnaire, see Appendix). Both analysis methods can be considered some type of a so-called ‘SVA’. A vulnerability assessment is the process of identifying, quantifying and prioritizing (or ranking) the vulnerabilities in a company, whereas a threat analysis is concerned with the similar process as regards all possible threats to a firm.

  5. Delivery implies a shipment to a third party (another firm), whereas internal transportation is referred to shipments between two production units or between a production unit and a distribution hub or warehouse of the same firm.

References

  • Abkowitz, M. and Der-Ming Cheng, P. (1988) Developing a risk/cost framework for routing truck movements of hazardous materials. Accident Analysis and Prevention 20 (1): 39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M.G.H., Hosseinloo, S.H. and Kanturska, U. (eds.) (2010) Security and environmental sustainability of multimodal transport. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

  • Bersani, Ch., Boulmakoul, A., Garbolino, E. and Sacile, R. (eds.) (2008) Advanced technologies and methodologies for risk management in the global transport of dangerous goods. In: NATO Science for Peace and Security Series E: Human and Societal Dynamics, Vol. 45. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • CCPS. (1995) Guidelines for Chemical Transportation Risk Analysis. New York: American Institute of Chemical Engineers.

  • CCPS. (2008) Guidelines for Chemical Transportation, Safety, Security, and Risk Management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

  • Eurostat. (2011) Eurostat Regional Yearbook 2011. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

  • Fischer, R.J., Halibozek, E. and Green, G. (2008) Introduction to Security, 8th edn. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrick, B.J. et al (2004) Confronting the risks of terrorism: Making the right decisions. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 86 (2): 129–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jia, H., Zhang, L., Lou, X. and Cao, H. (2011) A fuzzy-stochastic constraint programming model for hazmat road transportation considering terrorism attacking. Systems Engineering Procedia 1: 130–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDougall, A. and Radvanovsky, R. (2008) Transportation Systems Security. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milazzo, M.F., Lisi, R., Maschio, G., Antonioni, G. and Spadoni, G. (2010) A study of land transport of dangerous substances in Eastern Sicily. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 23 (3): 393–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reniers, G.L.L. and Zamparini, L. (eds.) (2012) Security Aspects of Uni-and Multi-modal Hazmat Transportation Systems. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Speier, Ch., Whipple, J.M., Closs, D.J. and Voss, M.D. (2011) Global supply chain design considerations: Mitigating product safety and security risks. Journal of Operations Management 29 (7–8): 721–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Transportation. (2010) Freight Facts and Figures 2010. Washington DC: US DoT.

  • Yoon, S.W., Velasquez, J.D., Partridge, B.K. and Nof, S.Y. (2008) Transportation security decision support system for emergency response: A training prototype. Decision Support Systems 46 (1): 139–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Paola Papa and Eline Neels for their active support in the empirical survey and two anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Salento, Faculty of Social, Political and Territorial Studies, Via per Monteroni, snc, Lecce, 73100, Italy

    Luca Zamparini

  2. University of Antwerp and Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Prinsstraat 13, Antwerpen, 2000, Belgium

    Genserik Reniers

Authors
  1. Luca Zamparini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Genserik Reniers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Zamparini.

Appendix

Appendix

Survey on Hazmat Transport: Qualitative and Quantitative Issues

Dear Respondent,

1. Please fill in the following information of the company:

illustration

figure q

2. Description of a typical goods flow by means of the characteristics listed in the following frame.

illustration

figure p

3. Give information regarding the organization of the transport of your shipments by inserting a cross in the brackets provided (multiple choices are possible for each question) and give the corresponding percentage:

illustration

figure o

4. Is the decision of organizing the transport (but not all ‘logistics’ activities, cfr. supra) by yourself instead of outsourcing primarily based on cost characteristics (choosing the cheap solution) or primarily on security requirements? Please make a cross at the factors that influence your decision making (multiple answers are possible)

illustration

figure n

5. What is the average transportation cost of a shipment that you handle? (give approximate figures for the year 2007/2008/2009 excluding the costs of delivery and internal transportationFootnote 5).

illustration

figure m

6. Could you please segment your trade volume by providing the percentages for local, national and international transport (give an average figure for the period 2007–2009)?

illustration

figure l

7. What is the average commercial value of your shipped goods in €/kg (value/weight):____________________________________________________________

8. What is the yearly tonnage and average consignment size for each of the following categories and shipping modes? Shipping modes are those used at the start of the transportation route. Please indicate the total yearly tonnage in the beginning.

illustration

figure k

9. What is your yearly investment in security:

illustration

figure j

10. Have you ever experienced any security-related problems:

illustration

figure i

11. Could you please provide the three most important security measures for hazmat transportation (if possible/applicable applied in your company) according to your opinion?

For intra-modal transport?

 1………………………………………………………

 2………………………………………………………

 3………………………………………………………

For inter-modal transport?

 1………………………………………………………

 2………………………………………………………

 3………………………………………………………

At loading/unloading areas and/or at modal shift areas/locations? ………………………

 1………………………………………………………

 2……………………………………………………

 3……………………………………………………

12. a. What is the yearly investment (2007/2008/2009) needed for these three most important security measures?

For intra-modal transport? ……………/………………………/…………………

For inter-modal transport? ……………/………………………/…………………

At loading/unloading areas and/or at modal shift areas/locations? ………………………………..…………/………………………/…………………

b. Did your company make changes in security measures (and hence security investments) for hazmat transports since 2007? Why (not)?

illustration

figure h

13. Which analysis/assessment method(s) for security-related risks and threats for the hazmat transport does your company use?

illustration

figure g

14. Are the vulnerable locations/route segments identified for every hazmat transport route? If so, what is the procedure? If not, why not?

illustration

figure f

15. How do you keep informed and up-to-date regarding all relevant hazmat transport security legislation and regulations (regional, national and international)?

illustration

figure e

16. Does your company collaborate with other companies for guaranteeing the security of hazmat transports? With what kind of companies? Explain the collaboration agreement/procedure?

illustration

figure d

17. Does your company, for security reasons, use different transport modes for one hazmat transport shipment?

illustration

figure c

18. Are you considering making a change (now or in the future) from one transport mode to another for one or more of your goods flow?

illustration

figure b

19. Is it possible that you don’t want to change the mode because additional investment in material or infrastructure or both is required, or additional investment in security is required?

illustration

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zamparini, L., Reniers, G. A comparative study of hazardous material transportation security issues in Flanders and in Apulia. Secur J 26, 142–156 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2012.4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2012.4

Keywords

Search

Navigation