Assumptions, uncertainty, and catastrophic/existential risk : National risk assessments need improved methods and stakeholder engagement
© 2023 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis..
Two key shortcomings of national risk assessments (NRAs) are: (1) lack of justification and transparency around important foundational assumptions of the process, (2) omission of almost all the largest scale risks. Using a demonstration set of risks, we illustrate how NRA process assumptions around time horizon, discount rate, scenario choice, and decision rule impact on risk characterization and therefore any subsequent ranking. We then identify a neglected set of large-scale risks that are seldom included in NRAs, namely global catastrophic risks and existential threats to humanity. Under a highly conservative approach that considers only simple probability and impact metrics, the use of significant discount rates, and harms only to those currently alive at the time, we find these risks have likely salience far greater than their omission from national risk registers might suggest. We highlight the substantial uncertainty inherent in NRAs and argue that this is reason for more engagement with stakeholders and experts. Widespread engagement with an informed public and experts would legitimize key assumptions, encourage critique of knowledge, and ease shortcomings of NRAs. We advocate for a deliberative public tool that can support informed two-way communication between stakeholders and governments. We outline the first component of such a tool for communication and exploration of risks and assumptions. The most important factors for an "all hazards" approach to NRA are ensuring license for key assumptions and that all the salient risks are included before proceeding to ranking of risks and considering resource allocation and value.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:43 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis - 43(2023), 12 vom: 01. Dez., Seite 2486-2502 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Boyd, Matt [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Deliberative processes |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 10.12.2023 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1111/risa.14123 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM354132024 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM354132024 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231227131145.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/risa.14123 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1225.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM354132024 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)36907587 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Boyd, Matt |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Assumptions, uncertainty, and catastrophic/existential risk |b National risk assessments need improved methods and stakeholder engagement |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 10.12.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2023 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis. | ||
| 520 | |a Two key shortcomings of national risk assessments (NRAs) are: (1) lack of justification and transparency around important foundational assumptions of the process, (2) omission of almost all the largest scale risks. Using a demonstration set of risks, we illustrate how NRA process assumptions around time horizon, discount rate, scenario choice, and decision rule impact on risk characterization and therefore any subsequent ranking. We then identify a neglected set of large-scale risks that are seldom included in NRAs, namely global catastrophic risks and existential threats to humanity. Under a highly conservative approach that considers only simple probability and impact metrics, the use of significant discount rates, and harms only to those currently alive at the time, we find these risks have likely salience far greater than their omission from national risk registers might suggest. We highlight the substantial uncertainty inherent in NRAs and argue that this is reason for more engagement with stakeholders and experts. Widespread engagement with an informed public and experts would legitimize key assumptions, encourage critique of knowledge, and ease shortcomings of NRAs. We advocate for a deliberative public tool that can support informed two-way communication between stakeholders and governments. We outline the first component of such a tool for communication and exploration of risks and assumptions. The most important factors for an "all hazards" approach to NRA are ensuring license for key assumptions and that all the salient risks are included before proceeding to ranking of risks and considering resource allocation and value | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a deliberative processes | |
| 650 | 4 | |a existential risk | |
| 650 | 4 | |a global catastrophic risk | |
| 650 | 4 | |a national risk assessment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a national risk register | |
| 650 | 4 | |a public policy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a stakeholder engagement | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wilson, Nick |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis |d 1990 |g 43(2023), 12 vom: 01. Dez., Seite 2486-2502 |w (DE-627)NLM012965340 |x 1539-6924 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:43 |g year:2023 |g number:12 |g day:01 |g month:12 |g pages:2486-2502 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/risa.14123 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 43 |j 2023 |e 12 |b 01 |c 12 |h 2486-2502 | ||