Further Thoughts on the Utility of Risk Matrices

Risk Analysis

Volumn 33, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 2068-2078

  Ball, David J ^a   Watt, John ^a  

^a MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Public space; Reliability; Risk assessment; Risk matrices; Utility

Indexed keywords

LEISURE ACTIVITIES; PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS; PUBLIC SPACE; RECENT RESEARCHES; UTILITY;

RELIABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT;

HAZARDS;

HAZARD MANAGEMENT; LEARNING; PUBLIC SPACE; RANKING; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRANSPARENCY;

EID: 84887405433     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12057     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Cox LA. What's wrong with risk matrices? Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(2):497-512.
2. Levine ES. Improving risk matrices: The advantages of logarithmically scaled axes. Journal of Risk Research, 2012; 15(2):209-222.
3. NPSA (National Patient Safety Agency). A Risk Matrix for Risk Managers, 2008. Available at: http://www.npsa.nhs.uk/nrls/improvingpatientsafety/patient-safety-tools-and-guidance/risk-assessment-guides/risk-matrix-for-risk-managers. Accessed July 2012.
4. LFB (London Fire Brigade). Community Risk Register: Borough of Merton, 2009. Available at: http://www.merton.gov.uk/sw_london_crr__09.pdf. Accessed July 2012.
5. RSC (Royal Society of Chemistry). Environmental Risk Assessment, 2008. Available at: http://www.rsc.org/images/Environmental_Risk_Assessment_tcm18-122341.pdf. Accessed July 2012.
6. Credit Suisse. Success Factors for Swiss SMEs, 2012. Available at: https://infocus.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=352937&lang=EN&WT.mc_id=Feed%5FCredit%20Suisse%20%2D%20In%20Focus. Accessed July 2012.
7. ISO (International Standards Organisation). Risk Management: Risk Assessment Techniques, 2009. ISO/IEC 31010. Geneva: ISO.
8. Ball DJ, Ball-King LN. Public Safety and Risk Assessment: Improving Decision Making. London and New York: Earthscan, 2011.
9. Young L. Common Sense, Common Safety, 2010. London: HM Government. Available at: http://www.number10.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/402906_CommonSense_acc.pdf. Accessed July 2012.
10. Löfstedt RA. Reclaiming Health and Safety for All, 2011. London: HMSO. Available at: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lofstedt-report.pdf. Accessed July 2012.
11. Health and Safety Executive. Myth of the Month, 2012. Available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/mythofthemonth.htm. Accessed July 2012.
12. Garlick A. Estimating Risk: A Management Approach. Burlington, VT: Gower, 2007.
13. Pickering A, Cowley S. Risk matrices: Implied accuracy and false assumptions. Journal of Health and Safety Research and Practice, 2010; 2(1):9-16.
14. BSI (British Standards Institution). Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems - Guide, 2008, BS 8800. London: BSI, 2004.
15. 2REM) for different trades of construction works in Hong Kong. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2012; 48:167-184.
16. Slovic P. Perceptions of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. Pp. 117-152 in Krimsky S, Golding D (eds). Social Theories of Risk. Westport: Praeger, 1992.
17. Patel J, Ball DJ, Jones H. Factors affecting subjective ranking of driver distractions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2008; 40:392-395.
18. Krippendorff K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Methodology. London: Sage, 1980.
19. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 2004; 24:105-112.
20. Health and Safety Executive. Good practice and pitfalls in risk assessment. Research Report No. 151. Sudbury: HSE Books, 2003.
21. National Archives. Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, 2012. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/contents. Accessed July 2012.
22. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Why study risk perception? Risk Analysis, 1982; 2(2):83-93.
23. Slovic P, Layman M, Kraus N, Flynn J, Chalmers J, Gesell G. Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis, 1991; 11(4):683-696.
24. Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor DG. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24:311-322.
25. Douglas M, Wildavsky A. Risk and Culture. Berkeley: UCLA Press, 1983.
26. Adams J. Risk. London: UCL Press, 1995.
27. Schwartz M, Thompson M. Divided We Stand. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990.
28. Kahneman D. Thinking Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Books, 2011.
29. Slovic P. The Feeling of Risk. London & Washington: Earthscan, 2010.
30. Gladwell M. Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. London: Penguin Books, 2006.
31. Gigerenzer G. Gut Feelings: Short Cuts to Better Decision Making. London: Penguin Books, 2007.
32. Klein G. Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Boston: MIT Press, 1999.
33. Kahneman D, Klein G. Conditions for intuitive expertise. A failure to disagree. Journal of the American Psychological Association, 2009; 64(6):515-526.
34. Seedhouse DF. Health Promotion: Philosophy, Prejudice, Practice. Chichester: Wiley, 2004.
35. RoSPA (Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents). Leisure Safety: Safety & Risk Education, 2012. Available at: http://www.rospa.com/leisuresafety/adviceandinformation/safetyandriskeducation/default.aspx. Accessed July 2012.
36. Margolis H. Dealing with Risks: Why the Public and Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
37. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. 2005. Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(1):199-209.
38. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Pp. 277-313 in Bazerman M, Messick D, Tenbrunsel A, Wade-Benzoni K (eds). Environment, Ethics and Behaviour. San Francisco: New Lexington Press, 1997.