The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving risk matrices: the advantages of logarithmically scaled axes
Abstract
Risk matrices are a common tool used throughout the public and private sector to assess and manage risk qualitatively. However, these matrices have well-documented shortcomings when used for either assessment or management that can be shown by assuming a quantitative scale for the likelihood and consequence axes. This article describes the construction of a logarithmically scaled risk assessment matrix which alleviates some of the limitations inherent in using linearly structured risk matrices. In particular, logarithmic risk matrices can better differentiate between hazards with a large dynamic range in risks and, when used in combination with a new categorization scheme, the categorization of risks is more straightforward. These properties are demonstrated using a hypothetical example. Finally, the defensibility of logarithmic matrices is examined in the context of previously proposed rules for developing risk matrices.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Risk matrix use is frequent, partly due to its simple application and easy construction compared to alternative risk assessment methods.
“Risk matrix use is frequent, partly due to its simple application and easy construction compared to alternative risk assessment methods (Levine, 2012).”
From Beyond probability-impact matrices in project risk management: A quantitative methodology for risk prioritisation (2024) · cites this paper as Levine, 2012
Citations
Cites
On the Theory of Scales of Measurement
Stevens, S. S. (1946) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.103.2684.677 · Cited by 4,761 · cited 1×
“In risk matrices, the likelihood and consequence bins that make up the axes are ordinal scales whose only permissible operations are relational, such as ‘high likelihood’> ‘low likelihood’, etc. (Stevens 1946, 1951).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Altenbach, T.J. A comparison of risk assessment techniques from qualitative to quantitative. Proceedings of the joint ASME/JSME pressure vessels and piping conference. Honolulu, HI.
- Anderson K., 2006, Newsletter of the Australian Safety Critical Systems Association, 8
- 10.1080/13669870903564574 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00615.x · DOI
- Gabriel P., 2009, The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 24, 5
- Hora S., 2007, Advances in decision analysis, 129, 10.1017/CBO9780511611308.009 · DOI
- Jarrett R., 2010, Dealing with uncertainties in policing serious crime, 67
- Johansen N., 2007, NOVATECH, 925
- Kent S., 1964, Studies in Intelligence, 8, 49
- 10.1080/13669871003703260 · DOI
- 2004, Risk management: AS/NZS 4360:2004
- Stevens S., 1951, Handbook of experimental psychology, 1
- Vose D., 2008, Risk analysis: A quantitative guide
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Acebes, F., González-Varona, J. M., López-Paredes, A., & Pajares, J. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03180-5 · Cited by 74
Metadata
- Authors
- Levine, E. S.
- Affiliations
- United States Department of Homeland Security (US)
- Corresponding author
- Levine, E.S.
- ORCID
- Levine, E.S.
- Venue
- Journal of Risk Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-02
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 209-222
- ISSN
- 1366-9877 (ISSN-L)
- 1466-4461
- OpenAlex
- W1991258168
- Cited by
- 100
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 10.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Risk Research (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Risk and Safety Analysis
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
- Keywords
- risk matrix, logarithmic scaling, qualitative risk assessment, risk classification, risk management
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review