20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Guidance on a harmonised framework for pest risk assessment and the identification and evaluation of pest risk management options by EFSA : Harmonised framework for pest risk assessment in the EU

      EFSA Journal
      Wiley-Blackwell

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Sensitivity Anaysis as an Ingredient of Modeling

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Survey of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              What's wrong with risk matrices?

              Louis Cox (2008)
              Risk matrices-tables mapping "frequency" and "severity" ratings to corresponding risk priority levels-are popular in applications as diverse as terrorism risk analysis, highway construction project management, office building risk analysis, climate change risk management, and enterprise risk management (ERM). National and international standards (e.g., Military Standard 882C and AS/NZS 4360:1999) have stimulated adoption of risk matrices by many organizations and risk consultants. However, little research rigorously validates their performance in actually improving risk management decisions. This article examines some mathematical properties of risk matrices and shows that they have the following limitations. (a) Poor Resolution. Typical risk matrices can correctly and unambiguously compare only a small fraction (e.g., less than 10%) of randomly selected pairs of hazards. They can assign identical ratings to quantitatively very different risks ("range compression"). (b) Errors. Risk matrices can mistakenly assign higher qualitative ratings to quantitatively smaller risks. For risks with negatively correlated frequencies and severities, they can be "worse than useless," leading to worse-than-random decisions. (c) Suboptimal Resource Allocation. Effective allocation of resources to risk-reducing countermeasures cannot be based on the categories provided by risk matrices. (d) Ambiguous Inputs and Outputs. Categorizations of severity cannot be made objectively for uncertain consequences. Inputs to risk matrices (e.g., frequency and severity categorizations) and resulting outputs (i.e., risk ratings) require subjective interpretation, and different users may obtain opposite ratings of the same quantitative risks. These limitations suggest that risk matrices should be used with caution, and only with careful explanations of embedded judgments.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                EFSA Journal
                EFSA Journal
                Wiley-Blackwell
                18314732
                February 2010
                February 2010
                : 8
                : 2
                : 1495
                Article
                10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1495
                cf8fe6c7-64a7-43b6-9ffc-ddcec15fb6cf
                © 2010

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article