Lay–Expert Risk Perception Divide: Downscaling Global Problems to National Concerns

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 0 PHILOSOPHY Filosofija-Sociologija Pub Date : 2022-12-13 DOI:10.6001/fil-soc.v33i4.4844
A. Balžekienė, E. Zolubienė, A. Budžytė
{"title":"Lay–Expert Risk Perception Divide: Downscaling Global Problems to National Concerns","authors":"A. Balžekienė, E. Zolubienė, A. Budžytė","doi":"10.6001/fil-soc.v33i4.4844","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the modern world, risks are complex and systemic, and their effects are interconnected with the transformations in different layers of social systems. Global issues are not necessarily reflected in local contexts, and public perceptions of risks may differ significantly from expert assessments. The aim of the article is to reveal the differences between the opinions of the Lithuanian population and experts on economic, environmental, technological, geopolitical and social risks, and to compare the differences between the opinions of local experts and Lithuanian public and the assessments of experts from the Global Risk Reports. The article presents the results of a representative survey of the Lithuanian population and an online survey of municipal experts. The results of the study show that expert and population perceptions quite often coincide, especially in the case of social and economic threats. The biggest discrepancies, when the experts assessed the risks as higher than the population, were revealed in the cases of COVID-19, floods, forest fires, energy disruptions, and the mines from war legacy. Public identified higher risks than experts in the case of traffic accidents, illegal tracking of persons, illegal use of bank accounts/cards, Astravets NPP, and increase in prices. In the perception of risks of Lithuanian population and municipal experts in 2020–2021 economic and social risks dominated, and global risks with long-term effects, such as ecological or geopolitical, were not reflected in the local perceptions.","PeriodicalId":43648,"journal":{"name":"Filosofija-Sociologija","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Filosofija-Sociologija","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6001/fil-soc.v33i4.4844","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the modern world, risks are complex and systemic, and their effects are interconnected with the transformations in different layers of social systems. Global issues are not necessarily reflected in local contexts, and public perceptions of risks may differ significantly from expert assessments. The aim of the article is to reveal the differences between the opinions of the Lithuanian population and experts on economic, environmental, technological, geopolitical and social risks, and to compare the differences between the opinions of local experts and Lithuanian public and the assessments of experts from the Global Risk Reports. The article presents the results of a representative survey of the Lithuanian population and an online survey of municipal experts. The results of the study show that expert and population perceptions quite often coincide, especially in the case of social and economic threats. The biggest discrepancies, when the experts assessed the risks as higher than the population, were revealed in the cases of COVID-19, floods, forest fires, energy disruptions, and the mines from war legacy. Public identified higher risks than experts in the case of traffic accidents, illegal tracking of persons, illegal use of bank accounts/cards, Astravets NPP, and increase in prices. In the perception of risks of Lithuanian population and municipal experts in 2020–2021 economic and social risks dominated, and global risks with long-term effects, such as ecological or geopolitical, were not reflected in the local perceptions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
外行和专家的风险感知鸿沟:缩小全球问题到国家关注
在现代世界,风险是复杂和系统性的,其影响与社会制度不同层次的变革是相互关联的。全球问题不一定反映在当地情况下,公众对风险的看法可能与专家评估有很大不同。本文旨在揭示立陶宛民众和专家对经济、环境、技术、地缘政治和社会风险的不同看法,并比较当地专家和立陶宛公众的意见与全球风险报告专家的评估之间的差异。文章介绍了立陶宛人口的代表性调查和城市专家的在线调查的结果。研究结果表明,专家和民众的看法往往是一致的,特别是在社会和经济威胁的情况下。当专家评估风险高于人口时,最大的差异出现在COVID-19、洪水、森林火灾、能源中断和战争遗留地雷的情况下。在交通事故、非法跟踪、非法使用银行账户/卡、Astravets NPP和价格上涨等情况下,公众认为风险高于专家。在立陶宛人口和市政专家对2020-2021年风险的看法中,经济和社会风险占主导地位,具有长期影响的全球风险,如生态或地缘政治,没有反映在当地的看法中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
33.30%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Demographic Continuity as a Necessary Condition of Performable Post-communist Token Social Restorations Laisvi ir laimingi? Laimės dinamika Lietuvoje kartų kaitos perspektyvoje Gyvenantys mobiliame pasaulyje: 1980–2000 m. gimusiųjų migraciniai ketinimai ir šeiminio gyvenimo įsivaizdavimas Nuo socialinio darbo profesijos link socialinio darbo profesinės veiklos lauko analizės Jaunuolių delinkventinis elgesys Lietuvoje: ką atskleidžia naujas delinkvencijos ir viktimizacijos tyrimas?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1