Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS), Potsdam, Germany.
Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA.
Risk Anal. 2022 Jul;42(7):1455-1471. doi: 10.1111/risa.13831. Epub 2021 Oct 2.
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.
常规风险和系统性风险。常规风险在空间和时间上是可以控制的，遵循线性的因果关系，可以通过对因果链进行有效和有针对性的干预来解决。然而，系统性风险的特点是高度复杂性、跨界影响、随机关系、非线性因果模式和临界点，并且往往与它们所需的关注度相比，关注度较低。本文探讨了为什么系统性风险在公众认知中似乎被削弱的原因。本文接着考虑了社会风险放大框架在系统性风险背景下的有用性，并描述了该框架所需的扩展。它确定了用于评估系统性风险情况感知重要性的实用工具。最后，它认为，用图形表示和模拟不断演变的系统性风险以及潜在的对策，以及采用包容性风险治理的参与式审议方法，是预防、减轻或管理系统性风险的合适治理策略。
