The de minimis principle states that some risks are so trivial that they can be ignored or treated categorically differently from non-trivial risks. Lundgren and Stefánsson criticize the de minimis principle, arguing that it either has to be applied locally or globally and that problems arise whichever application is chosen. Aven and Seif respond to Lundgren and Stefánsson’s argument and defend the de minimis principle as a “meaningful and useful perspective for handling risk in practice.” The response highlights some aspects of the argument in Lundgren and Stefánsson that needs clarification, which is what we do in this note.
LundgrenBStefánssonHO.Against the de Minimis Principle. Risk Anal2020; 40: 908–914.
2.
AvenTSeifA.On the foundation and use of the de minimis principle in a risk analysis context. Proc IMechE Part O: J Risk and Reliability. Epub ahead of print 4 July 2021. DOI: 10.1177/1748006X211028401
3.
AvenTFlageR.Risk assessment with broad uncertainty and knowledge characterisation: an illustrating case study. In: AvenTZioE (eds.) Knowledge in risk assessment and management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2018, pp.26–52.
