The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Further Thoughts on the Utility of Risk Matrices
Abstract
Risk matrices are commonly encountered devices for rating hazards in numerous areas of risk management. Part of their popularity is predicated on their apparent simplicity and transparency. Recent research, however, has identified serious mathematical defects and inconsistencies. This article further examines the reliability and utility of risk matrices for ranking hazards, specifically in the context of public leisure activities including travel. We find that (1) different risk assessors may assign vastly different ratings to the same hazard, (2) even following lengthy reflection and learning scatter remains high, and (3) the underlying drivers of disparate ratings relate to fundamentally different worldviews, beliefs, and a panoply of psychosocial factors that are seldom explicitly acknowledged. It appears that risk matrices when used in this context may be creating no more than an artificial and even untrustworthy picture of the relative importance of hazards, which may be of little or no benefit to those trying to manage risk effectively and rationally.
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 matrices offer a well-defined structure for carrying out a methodical risk assessment, provide a practical justification for ranking and prioritising risks, visually and attractively inform stakeholders.
“Risk matrices offer a well-defined structure for carrying out a methodical risk assessment, provide a practical justification for ranking and prioritising risks, visually and attractively inform stakeholders, among other reasons (Talbot, 2014;Ball and Watt, 2013).”
From Beyond probability-impact matrices in project risk management: A quantitative methodology for risk prioritisation (2024) · cites this paper as Ball and Watt, 2013
Citations
Cites
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001 · Cited by 20,772
Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree.
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0016755 · Cited by 2,443
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 30
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/13669877.2011.634514 · DOI · Paper page
- RSC (Royal Society of Chemistry).Environmental Risk Assessment 2008. Available at:http://www.rsc.org/images/Environmental_Risk_Assessment_tcm18‐122341.pdf. Accessed July 2012.
- ISO (International Standards Organisation), 2009, Risk Management: Risk Assessment Techniques
- Ball DJ, 2011, Public Safety and Risk Assessment: Improving Decision Making
- Young L, 2010, Common Sense, Common Safety
- Löfstedt RA, 2011, Reclaiming Health and Safety for All
- Garlick A, 2007, Estimating Risk: A Management Approach
- Pickering A, 2010, Risk matrices: Implied accuracy and false assumptions, Journal of Health and Safety Research and Practice, 2, 9
- BSI (British Standards Institution), 2004, Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems — Guide, 2008, BS 8800
- 10.1016/j.aap.2011.05.011 · DOI
- Slovic P, 1992, Social Theories of Risk, 117
- 10.1016/j.aap.2007.07.006 · DOI
- Krippendorff K, 1980, Content Analysis: An Introduction to Methodology
- Health and Safety Executive, 2003, Good practice and pitfalls in risk assessment
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01369.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1991.tb00658.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1525/9780520907393 · DOI · Paper page
- Adams J, 1995, Risk
- Schwartz M, 1990, Divided We Stand
- Kahneman D, 2011, Thinking Fast and Slow
- Slovic P, 2010, The Feeling of Risk
- Gladwell M, 2006, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking
- Gigerenzer G, 2007, Gut Feelings: Short Cuts to Better Decision Making
- Klein G, 1999, Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions
- Seedhouse DF, 2004, Health Promotion: Philosophy, Prejudice, Practice
- Margolis H, 1996, Dealing with Risks: Why the Public and Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues
- 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00579.x · DOI
- Slovic P, 1997, Environment, Ethics and Behaviour, 277
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
- Ball, D. J., & Watt, J.
- Affiliations
- Middlesex University London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Watt, John
- ORCID
- Ball, David J.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-05-08
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2068-2078
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W1597171336
- Cited by
- 152
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 20.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Risk Analysis (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Risk and Safety Analysis
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- risk matrix, hazard ranking, risk assessment, inter-rater reliability, risk perception, psychosocial factors, travel risk, 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
