IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2606.27804.html

Methods for Uncertainty Representation in Risk Management: A Comparative Review and Decision-Oriented Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Albert Kutej
  • Stefan Rass

Abstract

The consideration of uncertainty is a central but frequently inadequately addressed component of risk management. A systematic treatment of uncertainty is essential for ensuring the quality and traceability of decision-making processes, particularly in complex and safety-critical environments. This review systematically analyzes how established risk management approaches conceptualize and represent uncertainty in both their theoretical foundations and practical applications. Based on a systematic literature review of 370 publications, the identified approaches are classified into five methodological families. These include probabilistic methods, evidence-based and fuzzy-logic approaches, qualitative elicitation techniques, graphical and visual representations and hybrid frameworks. The analysis shows that probabilistic methods remain predominant due to their quantitative rigor, whereas fuzzy and evidence-based approaches are particularly suited to addressing vagueness and epistemic uncertainty. Qualitative and graphical approaches are found to enhance interpretive understanding and support the transparent communication of uncertainty. Despite these developments, the analysis indicates that the practical integration of these approaches into operational risk management remains limited in many domains. The findings highlight the need for more structured guidance in method selection and suggest that future research would benefit from further development of hybrid approaches and visualization techniques.

Suggested Citation

  • Albert Kutej & Stefan Rass, 2026. "Methods for Uncertainty Representation in Risk Management: A Comparative Review and Decision-Oriented Framework," Papers 2606.27804, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2606.27804
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.27804
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Di Zio, Simone & Bolzan, Mario & Marozzi, Marco & Scioni, Manuela, 2024. "Delphi-based scenarios and risk management: A parallelism between paths destined to meet," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    2. George E. Apostolakis, 2004. "How Useful Is Quantitative Risk Assessment?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 515-520, June.
    3. Dubois, Didier & Prade, Henri, 1989. "Fuzzy sets, probability and measurement," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 135-154, May.
    4. Meng, Zeng & Zhao, Jingyu & Chen, Guohai & Yang, Dixiong, 2022. "Hybrid uncertainty propagation and reliability analysis using direct probability integral method and exponential convex model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    5. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    6. Elena Verdolini & Laura Díaz Anadón & Erin Baker & Valentina Bosetti & Lara Aleluia Reis, 2018. "Future Prospects for Energy Technologies: Insights from Expert Elicitations," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 133-153.
    7. Helton, Jon C., 2011. "Quantification of margins and uncertainties: Conceptual and computational basis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(9), pages 976-1013.
    8. Olli Herrala & Tommi Ekholm & Fabricio Oliveira, 2025. "Solving decision problems with endogenous uncertainty and conditional information revelation using influence diagrams," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 1-37, December.
    9. Salim Ullah Khan & Qiuhong Zhao & Muhammad Wisal & Kamran Ali Shah & Syed Shahid Shah, 2025. "A Data-Driven Bayesian Belief Network Influence Diagram Approach for Socio-Environmental Risk Assessment and Mitigation in Major Ecosystem- and Landscape-Modifier Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-32, April.
    10. Abigail R Colson & Roger M Cooke, 2018. "Expert Elicitation: Using the Classical Model to Validate Experts’ Judgments," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 113-132.
    11. Saad Muslet Albogami & Mohd Khairol Anuar Bin Mohd Ariffin & Eris Elianddy Bin Supeni & Kamarul Arifin Ahmad, 2021. "A New Hybrid AHP and Dempster—Shafer Theory of Evidence Method for Project Risk Assessment Problem," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(24), pages 1-30, December.
    12. Willy Aspinall, 2010. "A route to more tractable expert advice," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7279), pages 294-295, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    2. Johnson, Caroline A. & Flage, Roger & Guikema, Seth D., 2021. "Feasibility study of PRA for critical infrastructure risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    3. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    4. 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).
    5. Jeremy Rohmer & Eric Chojnacki, 2021. "Forecast of environment systems using expert judgements: performance comparison between the possibilistic and the classical model," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 131-146, March.
    6. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Jose, Victor Richmond R. & Knowlton, Morgan & Shachter, Ross & Siebert, Johannes Ulrich & Ulu, Canan, 2026. "Fifty years of decision analysis in operational research: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 329(2), pages 355-377.
    7. Emanuele Borgonovo & Alessandra Cillo & Curtis L. Smith, 2018. "On the Relationship between Safety and Decision Significance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(8), pages 1541-1558, August.
    8. Emanuele Borgonovo & Alessandra Cillo, 2017. "Deciding with Thresholds: Importance Measures and Value of Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 1828-1848, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Helton, Jon C. & Johnson, Jay D., 2011. "Quantification of margins and uncertainties: Alternative representations of epistemic uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(9), pages 1034-1052.
    11. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    12. Elena Verdolini & Laura Díaz Anadón & Erin Baker & Valentina Bosetti & Lara Aleluia Reis, 2018. "Future Prospects for Energy Technologies: Insights from Expert Elicitations," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 133-153.
    13. Milford, James & Henrion, Max & Hunter, Chad & Newes, Emily & Hughes, Caroline & Baldwin, Samuel F., 2022. "Energy sector portfolio analysis with uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 306(PA).
    14. Torbjørn Bjerga & Terje Aven, 2016. "Some perspectives on risk management: A security case study from the oil and gas industry," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 230(5), pages 512-520, October.
    15. Bani-Mustafa, Tasneem & Flage, Roger & Vasseur, Dominique & Zeng, Zhiguo & Zio, Enrico, 2020. "An extended method for evaluating assumptions deviations in quantitative risk assessment and its application to external flooding risk assessment of a nuclear power plant," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    16. Rhea Ravenna Sohst & Eduardo Acostamadiedo & Jasper Tjaden, 2023. "Reducing uncertainty in Delphi surveys: A case study on immigration to the EU," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 49(36), pages 983-1020.
    17. Terje Aven, 2013. "On How to Deal with Deep Uncertainties in a Risk Assessment and Management Context," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(12), pages 2082-2091, December.
    18. Henning Veland & Øystein Amundrud & Terje Aven, 2013. "Foundational issues in relation to national risk assessment methodologies," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(3), pages 348-358, June.
    19. Konstantinos Kazaras & Konstantinos Kirytopoulos, 2014. "Challenges for current quantitative risk assessment (QRA) models to describe explicitly the road tunnel safety level," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(8), pages 953-968, September.
    20. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2009. "On the Complex Definition of Risk: A Systems‐Based Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(12), pages 1647-1654, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:arx:papers:2606.27804. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    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.