Are risk perceptions “spatially differentiated realities”? This article is based on the first local version of the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report and considers risk perception as a social construct. This action-research project, carried out in the Grenoble metropolitan region in France, is based on a multidimensional approach of risks deployed through a survey of residents’ perceptions of 44 risks. Our theoretical position is based on a systemic and localised view of risk perception and a vision of sustainability based on social and planetary limits. The article draws on a multiple linear regression of declared concerns at local level, and a descriptive analysis and scoring of these risks. From the interpretation of these results, we highlight the importance of taking spatial specificities into account in the deployment of risk-related policies. We also show that perception of risk plays a role in the process of constructing public problems and the solutions that can be applied to determine solutions aligned with social and environmental limits. Over and above the objectification of risks at local level, the article highlights the value of an approach to risk that is co-constructed with local stakeholders.
AallCHolmTBCauchyA, et al. (2023) Think global – act local: the challenge of producing actionable knowledge on transboundary climate risks at the sub-national level of governance. Frontiers in Climate5: 1170142. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2023.1170142
2.
AdelekanIOAsiyanbiAP (2016) Flood risk perception in flood-affected communities in Lagos, Nigeria. Natural Hazards80(1): 445–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1977-2
AsgaryAOzdemirAIÖzyürekH (2020) Small and medium enterprises and global risks: evidence from manufacturing SMEs in Turkey. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science11: 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-020-00247-0
BalžekienėAEchavarrenJMTelešienėA (2024) The effect of proximity on risk perception: a systematic literature review. Current Sociology73(6): 975–994.
9.
BartonJRGutiérrez-AntinopaiFEscalona UlloaM (2021) Adaptive capacity as local sustainable development: contextualizing and comparing risks and resilience in two Chilean regions. Sustainability13(9): 4660. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094660
10.
BeckerAHMatsonPFischerM, et al. (2015) Towards seaport resilience for climate change adaptation: stakeholder perceptions of hurricane impacts in Gulfport (MS) and Providence (RI). Progress in Planning99: 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2013.11.002
11.
BiagiBMeledduM (2024) Exploring urban–rural paradox: does going rural mean higher life satisfaction?Italian Economic Journal10: 795–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40797-023-00248-0
12.
BickerstaffKSimmonsPPidgeonN (2008) Constructing responsibilities for risk: negotiating citizen — state relationships. Environment and Planning A40(6): 1312–1330. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39150
13.
Bin-HusaynARAbdullahMRimmelG (2024) The relationship between risk perception and risk management: a systematic literature review. Journal of Risk Research27(10): 1290–1307. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2024.2447258
14.
BirdDK (2009) The use of questionnaires for acquiring information on public perception of natural hazards and risk mitigation – a review of current knowledge and practice. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences9(4): 1307–1325. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-1307-2009
15.
BordRJFisherAO’ConnorRE (1998) Public perceptions of global warming: united States and international perspectives. Climate Research11: 75–84. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr011075
BubeckPBotzenWJWAertsJCJH (2012) A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior. Risk Analysis32(9): 1481–1495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01783.x
CagéJPikettyT (2025) A History of Political Conflicts: Elections & Social Inequalities in France, 1789-2022. Harvard University Press.
22.
CourcelleTFijalkowYTaulelleF (2017) Services Publics et Territoires. Adaptations, Innovations et Réactions (Public services and territories: adaptations, innovations, and responses). Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
23.
CugliariLCeraseAAmatoA (2022) Tsunami risk perception, a state-of-the-art review with a focus in the NEAM region. Frontiers in Earth Science10: 995536. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.995536
24.
de AmorimWSValdugaIBPereira RibeiroJM, et al. (2018) The nexus between water, energy, and food in the context of the global risks: an analysis of the interactions between food, water, and energy security. Environmental Impact Assessment Review72: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.05.002
25.
Di MéoG (2008) Une géographie sociale entre représentations et action (A social geography between representations and action). Montagnes Méditerranéennes et Développement Territorial23: 13–21.
26.
DoRBakKYLeeSY, et al. (2025) Comparison of Multi-Risk Perceptions and Sociodemographic Characteristics in South Korea: Cognitive and Affective Dimensions. Sage Open, pp. 1–12.
Freire-GibbLCNielsenK (2014) Entrepreneurship within urban and rural areas: creative people and social networks. Regional Studies48(1): 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.808322
GiannakisEBruggemanA (2019) Regional disparities in economic resilience in the European Union across the urban–rural divide. Regional Studies54(9): 1200–1213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1698720
31.
GoerlandtFLiJReniersG (2021) The landscape of risk perception research: a scientometric analysis. Sustainability13: 13188. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313188
32.
HoorensV (2020) Risk perception. In: SweeneyKRobbinsM (eds) The Wiley Encyclopedia of Health Psychology: Volume II, the Social Bases of Health Behavior. Wiley, pp. 547–555.
IPBES (2019) Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat.
35.
IPCC (2023) Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.
KellensWTerpstraTDe MaeyerP (2013) Perception and communication of flood risks: a systematic review of empirical research. Risk Analysis33(1): 24–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01844.x
38.
KlinkeARennO (2002) A new approach to risk evaluation and management: risk-based, precaution‐based, and discourse‐based strategies. Risk Analysis22(6): 1071–1094. https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00274
39.
LatourB (2017) Facing Gaia. Eight Lectures on the New Climate Regime. Polity Press.
LechowskaE (2018) What determines flood risk perception? A review of factors of flood risk perception and relations between its basic elements. Natural Hazards94(3): 1341–1366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3480-z
42.
LenziCPerrucaG (2022) No place for poor men: on the asymmetric effect of urbanization on life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research164: 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-022-02946-1
43.
LythASpinazeAWatsonP, et al. (2018) Place, human agency and community resilience – considerations for public health management of smoke from prescribed burning. Local Environment23(10): 975–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2018.1508205
44.
MartinR (2021) Rebuilding the economy from the covid crisis: time to rethink regional studies?Regional Studies, Regional Science8(1): 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2021.1919191
45.
MerzBKreibichHSchwarzeR, et al. (2010) Review article “Assessment of economic flood damage”. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences10(8): 1697–1724. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-1697-2010
46.
MiaoQWelchEWZhangF, et al. (2018) What drives public transit organizations in the United States to adapt to extreme weather events?Journal of Environmental Management225: 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.07.093
47.
MichellierCPigeonPKervynF, et al. (2016) Contextualizing vulnerability assessment: a support to geo-risk management in Central Africa. Natural Hazards82: 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2295-z
48.
NathanF (2008) Risk perception, risk management and vulnerability to landslides in the hill slopes in the city of La Paz, Bolivia. A preliminary statement. Disasters32(3): 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01043.x
Okulicz-KozarynAMazelisJM (2016) Urbanism and happiness: a test of Wirth’s theory of urban life. Urban Studies55(2): 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016645470
51.
PedeE (2019) Improving resilience through cross-scale knowledge sharing. In: BrunettaGCaldariceOTollinN, et al. (eds) Urban Resilience for Risk and Adaptation Governance. Theory and Practice. Springer, pp. 93–110.
52.
PikeARodríguez-PoseATomaneyJ (2007) What kind of local and regional development and for whom?Regional Studies41(9): 1253–1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701543355
53.
RaworthK (2017) Doughnut Economics. Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Random House Business Book.
54.
Reghezza-ZittM (2013) Utiliser la polysémie de la résilience pour comprendre les différentes approches du risque et leur possible articulation (Using the polysemy of resilience to understand different approaches to risk and their possible articulation). EchoGéo24. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4000/echogeo.13401
55.
RevezACortes-VazquezJAFloodS (2017) Risky policies: local contestation of mainstream flood risk management approaches in Ireland. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space49(11): 2497–2516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518x17730054
56.
RizovMWalshPP (2010) Is there a rural-urban divide? Location and productivity of UK manufacturing. Regional Studies45(5): 641–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343401003713449
57.
RocherL (2016) Governing metropolitan climate-energy transition: a study of Lyon’s strategic planning. Urban Studies54(5): 1092–1107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015624851
58.
Rodríguez-PoseA (2018) The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society11: 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsx024
59.
SlovicP (2000) The Perception of Risk. Earthscan.
60.
SørensenJFL (2012) Testing the hypothesis of higher social capital in rural areas: the case of Denmark. Regional Studies46(7): 873–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.669471
61.
SørensenJFL (2013) Rural–urban differences in life satisfaction: evidence from the European Union. Regional Studies48(9): 1451–1466. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.753142
62.
StødleKFlageRGuikemaSD, et al. (2023) Data-driven predictive modeling in risk assessment: challenges and directions for proper uncertainty representation. Risk Analysis43(12): 2644–2658. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14128
63.
TalebNN (2007) The Black Sawn: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Allen Lane.
64.
TallakiMBracciE (2021) Risk perception, accounting, and resilience in public sector organizations: a case study analysis. Journal of Risk and Financial Management14(1): 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14010004
65.
TobinGA (1999) Sustainability and community resilience: the holy grail of hazards planning?Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards1(1): 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1464-2867(99)00002-9
66.
VasváriT (2015) Risk, risk perception, risk management – a review of the literature. Public Finance Quarterly1: 29–48.
67.
VerlyndeN (2018) De la perception du risque d’inondation aux propositions d’adaptation en territoire de côtes basses densément peuplées: Le cas de la communauté urbaine de Dunkerque (From the perception of flood risk to adaptation proposals in densely populated low-lying coastal areas: the case of the Dunkirk Urban Community). PhD Dissertation. Université du Littoral Côte d’Opale. https://theses.fr/2018DUNK0500
WangFWeiJHuangSK, et al. (2018) Public reactions to the 2013 Chinese H7N9 influenza outbreak: perceptions of risk, stakeholders, and protective actions. Journal of Risk Research21(7): 809–833. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1247377
70.
WangCGengLRodríguez-CasallasJD (2021) How and when higher climate change risk perception promotes less climate change inaction. Journal of Cleaner Production321: 128952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128952
71.
World Economic Forum (2024) The Global Risks Report 2024. 19th edition. Insight Report.
72.
WuijtsSFriederichsLHinJA, et al. (2020) Governance conditions to overcome the challenges of realizing safe urban bathing water sites. International Journal of Water Resources Development38(4): 554–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2020.1755617
73.
YazarMYorkALarsonKL (2022) Adaptation, exposure, and politics: local extreme heat and global climate change risk perceptions in the phoenix metropolitan region, USA. Cities127: 103763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103763
74.
YuSWelchEW (2024) Responding strategically to natural hazards: the role of hazard experience, infrastructure vulnerability, and risk perception in transit agency coordination with stakeholders. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management67(1): 108–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2100246
75.
ZaidiRZPellingM (2013) Institutionally configured risk: assessing urban resilience and disaster risk reduction to heat wave risk in London. Urban Studies52(7): 1218–1233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013510957
ZhangFWelchEWMiaoQ (2018) Public organization adaptation to extreme events: mediating role of risk perception. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory28(3): 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy004
