Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Porter TM (1995). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton University Press (Princeton NJ).
Adams J (1995). Risk. UCL Press (London).
Gheorghe AV and Vamanu DV (2002). Integrated risk assessment and safety management: transportation of dangerous goods. Internationaljournal of Risk Assessment 3, 99–112.
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.
Hansson SO (1989). Dimensions of risk. Risk Analysis 9, 107–112.
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.
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.
Harremoes P (2002). Ethical aspects of scientific incertitude in environmental analysis and decision making. Journal of Cleaner Production 11, 705–712.s
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer-Verlag London
About this paper
Cite this paper
Busby, J.S., Alcock, R.E., Hughes, E.J. (2004). Credibility in risk assessment. In: Spitzer, C., Schmocker, U., Dang, V.N. (eds) Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-410-4_450
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-410-4_450
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-1057-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-85729-410-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive