Carrot diagrams are often used to illustrate types of risks, and are frequently used within the ALARP principle. They are called carrot diagrams because they are triangular in shape with the smallest side at the bottom and are usually colored orange. The diagram indicates at the top the unacceptable risks, which must be reduced without taking into account the economic benefit that this entails, and the insignificant risks at the bottom. The intermediate zone is the tolerable risk zone, which is often called ALARP zone, although this is incorrect since the ALARP principle is applicable in all zones. In the tolerable risk zone, risks are ALARP if they cannot be reduced so that the cost of the reduction is not disproportionate to the benefit that would be obtained from the reduction.

As long as a risk has previously been reduced to a tolerable level, a cost-benefit study must be conducted to determine whether the risk has been reduced to the ALARP level. This study must demonstrate through a comparison that the expense required to reduce the risk would be disproportionate to the benefit obtained. If this cannot be demonstrated, the residual risk cannot be considered ALARP.

Another factor to take into account is the cost of evaluating the benefit obtained in risk reduction. In extremely complex systems, this cost can be extremely high, so it may prove to be the determining factor in determining the feasibility of risk reduction.

Outside the UK it is rare to find use in the ALARP principle, and instead prescriptive regulations and practices are used alongside legislation that identifies absolute levels of security required.

When the ALARP principle is used outside the UK, it may not have the same implications as in the UK. For example, "reasonably practicable" may be interpreted according to local culture and with different implications, and there may be no mention of the concept of disproportionality.

In the ALARP context, risk is defined as the combination of the frequency (probability) and the consequence (significance or severity) of a dangerous event.

The factors that are generally considered when determining whether a risk is tolerable are:.

Carrot diagrams are often used to illustrate types of risks, and are frequently used within the ALARP principle. They are called carrot diagrams because they are triangular in shape with the smallest side at the bottom and are usually colored orange. The diagram indicates at the top the unacceptable risks, which must be reduced without taking into account the economic benefit that this entails, and the insignificant risks at the bottom. The intermediate zone is the tolerable risk zone, which is often called ALARP zone, although this is incorrect since the ALARP principle is applicable in all zones. In the tolerable risk zone, risks are ALARP if they cannot be reduced so that the cost of the reduction is not disproportionate to the benefit that would be obtained from the reduction.

As long as a risk has previously been reduced to a tolerable level, a cost-benefit study must be conducted to determine whether the risk has been reduced to the ALARP level. This study must demonstrate through a comparison that the expense required to reduce the risk would be disproportionate to the benefit obtained. If this cannot be demonstrated, the residual risk cannot be considered ALARP.

Another factor to take into account is the cost of evaluating the benefit obtained in risk reduction. In extremely complex systems, this cost can be extremely high, so it may prove to be the determining factor in determining the feasibility of risk reduction.

Outside the UK it is rare to find use in the ALARP principle, and instead prescriptive regulations and practices are used alongside legislation that identifies absolute levels of security required.

When the ALARP principle is used outside the UK, it may not have the same implications as in the UK. For example, "reasonably practicable" may be interpreted according to local culture and with different implications, and there may be no mention of the concept of disproportionality.