Cited by 63Risk Perception and ManagementDisaster Management and ResilienceLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies

Social perception of systemic risks

Open access
Schweizer, Pia‐Johanna, Goble, Robert, Renn, Ortwin·2022·Risk Analysis

Abstract

The article distinguishes between two types of risks: conventional and systemic risks. Conventional risks can be contained in space and time, follow linear cause-effect relationships and can be addressed with effective and pointed interventions into the cause-effect chain. Systemic risks, however, are characterized by high complexity, transboundary effects, stochastic relationships, nonlinear cause-effect patterns with tipping points, and are often associated with less public attention than they require. The article addresses the reasons why systemic risks seem to be attenuated in public perception. The article goes on to consider how the social amplification of risk framework is useful in the context of systemic risks and describes needed extensions of that framework. It identifies practical tools for assessing the significance of perceptions for systemic risk situations. Finally, it argues that a graphic representation and simulation of evolving systemic risks and potential countermeasures as well as a participatory deliberative approach of inclusive risk governance are suitable governance strategies for preventing, mitigating, or managing systemic risks.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/risa.13831

Cites

119 of 119 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 122 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Brukmajster, D., Hampel, J., & Renn, O. (2007). Energy tech- nology roadmap and stakeholders perspective. Establishment of social criteria for energy systems. In Stuttgart contributions to risk and sustainability research (Vol. 6). Stuttgart, Germany: Stuttgart University Press.
  2. Ewald, F. (1999). Risk in contemporary society. Connecti- cut Insurance Law Journal, 6, 365-380. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein. journals/conilj6&section=17
  3. Graham, J., & Kasperson, R. E. (1985). Television as a social haz- ard. In R. W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, & R. E. Kasperson (Eds.), Perilous progress: Managing the hazards of technology (pp. 427- 454). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  4. Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2016). Trust in science and the science of trust. In B. Blöbaum (Ed.), Trust and com- munication in a digitized world. Progress in IS (pp. 143-159).
  5. Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality. New York, NY: Routledge.
  6. In C. B. Field, V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, D. J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, G. -K. Plattner, S. K. Allen, M. Tignor, P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Managing the risks of ex- treme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation (pp. 109-230). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schweizer, P., Goble, R., & Renn, O.
Affiliations
  • Research Institute for Sustainability at GFZ (DE)
  • Clark University (US)
Corresponding author
Schweizer, Pia‐Johanna
Venue
Risk Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-10-02
Volume
42
Issue
7
Pages
1455-1471
ISSN
  • 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-6924
OpenAlex
W3204432734
Cited by
63
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8
FWCI
12.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Risk Analysis (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Clark Digital Commons (Clark University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Publication Database IASS (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
Keywords
systemic risk, risk perception, social amplification of risk, tipping points, transboundary effects, participatory deliberation, risk simulation, risk countermeasures
MeSH terms
Risk Management, Social Perception

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