IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v140y2015icp116-121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the allegations that small risks are treated out of proportion to their importance

Author

Listed:
  • Aven, Terje

Abstract

Many authors argue that we suffer from a lack of ability to treat small risks; we either ignore them completely or give them too much emphasis. An example often referred to is terrorism risk, the reference being the number of fatalities observed due to terror compared to for example deaths in traffic accidents. The thesis is that the risk is over-estimated. However, these assertions, that the risks are over-estimated and we give them too much emphasis – they are treated out of proportion to their importance – cannot be justified in any scientifically meaningful way when there are large uncertainties about the consequences of the activity considered. Over-estimation is a value judgment, as is the phrase “far too much emphasis†. In the paper the author argues that the statements represent some serious misconceptions about risk. The purpose of the present paper is to point to these misconceptions and provide some guidance on how they can be rectified.

Suggested Citation

  • Aven, Terje, 2015. "On the allegations that small risks are treated out of proportion to their importance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 116-121.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:140:y:2015:i:c:p:116-121
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832015001131
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2015.04.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Subhas C. Misra & Uma Kumar & Vinod Kumar & Mahmud A. Shareef, 2007. "Risk management models in software engineering," International Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1), pages 59-70.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2012. "The risk concept—historical and recent development trends," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 33-44.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    2. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Supplementing quantitative risk assessments with a stage addressing the risk understanding of the decision maker," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 51-57.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2018. "Perspectives on the nexus between good risk communication and high scientific risk analysis quality," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 290-296.
    4. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    5. Terje Aven & Roger Flage, 2020. "Foundational Challenges for Advancing the Field and Discipline of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2128-2136, November.
    6. Ruipeng Tong & Cunli Zhai & Qingli Jia & Chunlin Wu & Yan Liu & Surui Xue, 2018. "An Interactive Model among Potential Human Risk Factors: 331 Cases of Coal Mine Roof Accidents in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Antonín Korauš & Miroslav Gombár & Pavel Kelemen & Jozef Polák, 2019. "Analysis of respondents' opinions and attitudes toward the security of payment systems," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(4), pages 1987-2002, June.
    2. Marcela Tuzová & Martina Toulová & Lea Kubíčková, 2017. "The Specifics of the Internationalization Process of Czech SMEs in the Food Industry," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(3), pages 1055-1064.
    3. Charles Sabel & Gary Herrigel & Peer Hull Kristensen, 2018. "Regulation under uncertainty: The coevolution of industry and regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 371-394, September.
    4. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.
    5. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    6. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    7. Peng Hou & Xiaojian Yi & Haiping Dong, 2020. "A Spatial Statistic Based Risk Assessment Approach to Prioritize the Pipeline Inspection of the Pipeline Network," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, February.
    8. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    9. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    10. Efrah Wozir Abdulahi & Luo Fan, 2021. "Exploring and Validating Container Operational Risk Scale in Container Shipping: The Case of Ethiopian Shipping and Logistics Service Enterprise," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-21, August.
    11. Li, Mengxia & Mou, Junmin & Chen, Linying & He, Yixiong & Huang, Yamin, 2021. "A rule-aware time-varying conflict risk measure for MASS considering maritime practice," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    12. Aven, Terje & Krohn, Bodil S., 2014. "A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-10.
    13. Simon Ashby & Trevor Buck & Stephanie Nöth-Zahn & Thomas Peisl, 2018. "Emerging IT Risks: Insights from German Banking," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 43(2), pages 180-207, April.
    14. Goerlandt, Floris & Montewka, Jakub, 2015. "Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 115-134.
    15. Basit Shahzad & Fazal-e-Amin & Ahsanullah Abro & Muhammad Imran & Muhammad Shoaib, 2021. "Resource Optimization-Based Software Risk Reduction Model for Large-Scale Application Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, March.
    16. Rio Yonson & Ilan Noy, 2020. "Disaster Risk Management Policies and the Measurement of Resilience for Philippine Regions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 254-275, February.
    17. Jedynak Piotr & Bąk Sylwia, 2020. "Understanding Uncertainty and Risk in Management," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 12-35, March.
    18. Fan, Cunlong & Montewka, Jakub & Zhang, Di, 2022. "A risk comparison framework for autonomous ships navigation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    19. Thomas Ying‐Jeh Chen & Valerie Nicole Washington & Terje Aven & Seth David Guikema, 2020. "Review and Evaluation of the J100‐10 Risk and Resilience Management Standard for Water and Wastewater Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 608-623, March.
    20. Ruponen, Pekka & Montewka, Jakub & Tompuri, Markus & Manderbacka, Teemu & Hirdaris, Spyros, 2022. "A framework for onboard assessment and monitoring of flooding risk due to open watertight doors for passenger ships," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:140:y:2015:i:c:p:116-121. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.