Credibility in risk assessment

  • J. S. Busby
  • R. E. Alcock
  • E. J. Hughes
Conference paper


A framework has been developed in an attempt to provide a normative model for speaking about the credibility of risk assessments. It consists of a number of facets (for example completeness), and the facets group together a number of norms (for example the norm that risk assessments should explain the rationale for the categories of outcome they consider). These norms were derived from a study of the limitations of risk assessment methodology, developed from a set of expert interviews and a survey of the literature. This framework was applied to a case study of a risk assessment recently conducted in the maritime industry. The proposal is that the framework should contribute to 1) reflection on the part of risk assessors themselves, 2) reviews of risk assessments by stakeholders, particularly regulatory bodies, and 3) the processes by which organisations such as regulators specify what they want from risk assessments in their industries.


Risk Assessment Contemporary Debate Maritime Industry Risk Assessment Methodology Credibility Norm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Porter TM (1995). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton University Press (Princeton NJ).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams J (1995). Risk. UCL Press (London).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gheorghe AV and Vamanu DV (2002). Integrated risk assessment and safety management: transportation of dangerous goods. Internationaljournal of Risk Assessment 3, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hood C and Jones DKC (1996). Homeostatic versus collibrationist approaches to risk management. In Hood C and Jones DKC (eds.). Accident and Design. Contemporary Debates in Risk Management, UCL Press (London), 205–207.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hansson SO (1989). Dimensions of risk. Risk Analysis 9, 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Toft B (1996). Limits to the mathematical modelling of disasters. In Hood C and Jones DKC (eds.). Accident and Design. Contemporary Debates in Risk Management, UCL Press (London), 99–110.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kvitrud A, Ersdal G and Leonhardsen RL (2001). On the risk of structural failure on Norwegian offshore installations. Proc. 11th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Stavanger, June 17-22, 459–464.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harremoes P (2002). Ethical aspects of scientific incertitude in environmental analysis and decision making. Journal of Cleaner Production 11, 705–712.sCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohen AV (1996). Quantitative risk assessment and decisions about risk. In Hood C and Jones DKC (eds.). Accident and Design. Contemporary Debates in Risk Management, UCL Press (London), 87–98.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. S. Busby
    • 1
  • R. E. Alcock
    • 1
  • E. J. Hughes
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Management ScienceLancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  2. 2.Maritime and Coastguard AgencySouthamptionUK

Personalised recommendations