The Safety Risk Event Avoidance Capability (SAREAC) Indicator | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2589-6725
  • E-ISSN: 2589-6733



Current practice regarding risk assessment contemplates the severity and likelihood of risks and employs the use of matrices where these factors are classified and cross-referenced to evaluate risk levels. Depending on the adequacy and reliability of data, the likelihood is estimated with quantitative or qualitative methods; severity is estimated according to experience from past events. This standard technique for assessing risks has been negatively criticised regarding validity and reliability due to effects of cognitive biases and a deterministic view of the possible consequences of risks. Even more, because of the lack of standardisation in risk matrices, a benchmarking across systems and organisations is not feasible. Taking into account the limitations mentioned, as well as the fact that the classification of hazards/causal factors, risk event(s) and consequences always depend on the analyst's view, this study proposes the Safety Risk Avoidance Capability (SAREAC) metric for a defined system. This metric focus on the prevention of risk events and combines quantitative and qualitative parameters referred in the literature but not yet exploited. SAREAC consists of two parts: the influence of hazards and the remaining effects of hazards after implementing or designing controls. Each of the SAREAC parts is calculated through specific steps which they result in a normalized score that allows more reliable comparisons amongst systems or over time. Data from a published risk assessment case study were used to demonstrate the use of SAREAC.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. AlizadehS. S & Moshashaei, P. (2015). The Bowtie method in safety management system: A literature review. Scientific Journal of Review, 9(2322-2433), 134–135.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. CGE Risk Management Solutions (2017). The bowtie method. Retrieved 18 November 2017 from:
  3. Duijm, J. (2015). Recommendations on the use and design of risk matrices. Journal of Occupational Accidents, 76, 21–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). (2017). Electronic logging devices. Retrieved 27 October 2017 from:
  5. Foster, B. (2017). Are highway warning signs effective? [Weblog]. Retrieved 13 November 2017 from:
  6. Health and Safety at Work. (2007). Slip Resistant Footwear. Retrieved 11 November 2017 from:
  7. Health and Safety Executive. (2010). A study of the effect of modifying the European Standard mechanical slip resistance test for footwear. Retrieved 11 November 2017 from:
  8. Health and Safety Executive. (2013). Example risk assessments. Retrieved 11 November 2017 from:
  9. Hollnagel, E. (1999). Accidents and Barriers. Sweden: Graduate School of Human-Machine Interaction, University of Linköping.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hubbard, D & Evans, D. (2010). Problems with scoring methods and ordinal scales in risk assessment. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 54(3), 2:1 - 2:10.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. International Organization for Standardization. (2009). ISO 31000:2009. Retrieved 11 November 2017: from Journal of Building Physics.
  12. Karanikas, N & Kaspers, S. (2016). Do Experts Agree When Assessing Risks? An Empirical Study. Proceedings of the 50th ESReDA Seminar, 18-19 May 2016, Seville, Spain.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Milke, A. (2014). Fire Protection Engineering. (4th Quarter ed.). USA: Society of Fire Protection Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Yuan, J & Emura, K & Farnham, K (2015). A method to measure to-reflectance and durability of retro-reflective materials for building outer walls. Journal of Building Physics, 38(6), 500–516.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Risk Assessment; Safety Barriers; SAREAC
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error