The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management
Abstract
This is a perspective article on foundational issues in risk assessment and management. The aim is to discuss the needs, obstacles, and challenges for the establishment of a renewed, strong scientific foundation for risk assessment and risk management suited for the current and future technological challenges. The focus is on (i) reviewing and discussing the present situation and (ii) identifying how to best proceed in the future, to develop the risk discipline in the directions needed. The article provides some reflections on the interpretation and understanding of the concept of “foundations of risk assessment and risk management” and the challenges therein. One main recommendation is that different arenas and moments for discussion are needed to specifically address foundational issues in a way that embraces the many disciplinary communities involved (from social scientists to engineers, from behavioral scientists to statisticians, from health physicists to lawyers, etc.). One such opportunity is sought in the constitution of a novel specialty group of the Society of Risk Analysis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2008) · Cited by 1,325
Shrader‐Frechette, K. (1991) · University of California Press eBooks · doi:10.1525/9780520320789 · Cited by 637
Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk
Rosa, E. A. (1998) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/136698798377303 · Cited by 489
How Useful Is Quantitative Risk Assessment?
Apostolakis, G. E. (2004) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00455.x · Cited by 411
Aven, T., & Zio, E. (2011) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2010.06.001 · Cited by 335
Self-citationOn “Black Swans” and “Perfect Storms”: Risk Analysis and Management When Statistics Are Not Enough
Paté‐Cornell, E. (2012) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01787.x · Cited by 302
Risk Management and Governance
Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2010) · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13926-0 · Cited by 285
Self-citationConfronting Deep Uncertainties in Risk Analysis
Cox, L. A. (. (2012) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01792.x · Cited by 207
How Probabilistic Risk Assessment Can Mislead Terrorism Risk Analysts
Brown, G. G., & Cox, Jr. (2011) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01492.x · Cited by 165
Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management
Aven, T. (2012) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01798.x · Cited by 140
Self-citation
Cited by
Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation
Aven, T. (2016) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023 · Cited by 1,713
“Arguments for seeing beyond expected values and probabilities in defining and describing risk are summarised in Aven (2012 , 2015c ); see also Section 4 .”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationZio, E. (2018) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2018.04.020 · Cited by 401
Self-citationHydro-meteorological risk assessment methods and management by nature-based solutions
Sahani, J., Kumar, P., Debele, S., Spyrou, C., Loupis, M., Aragão, L., Porcù, F., Shah, M. A. R., & Di Sabatino, S. (2019) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133936 · Cited by 154
A Review on Risk Management in Information Systems: Risk Policy, Control and Fraud Detection
Taherdoost, H. (2021) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics10243065 · Cited by 66
Metadata
- Authors
- Aven, T., & Zio, E.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-10-23
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1164-1172
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2139203596
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 54.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/risa.12132
- The paper
- Aven, T., & Zio, E. (2014). Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12132
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
