Section 1
By Organization
Survey respondents were asked to provide some information about their background: their age, their gender, where they live, for what kind of organization they work, and their subject-area expertise. Using this demographic data the risks landscape was cut up in different ways to see how different groups with specific characteristics perceive global risks.
Similarly, it is possible to look at how the perceptions of people who work at different types of organizations differ. This year, the differences are less pronounced than last year. One striking observation, though, is that for many risks, people working for NGOs tend to assign higher scores than their peers from other organizations. In particular, people from NGOs see many risks as more likely than respondents from the government sector, and they rate impacts more highly than those in the business world (see Appendix 2 for more results). Figure 32: Comparison between Organizational Affiliations Academia
Business
4
4
The scatterplot for Latin America demonstrates that respondents based in that region tend to assign a higher impact to risks. For instance, they see the impact of ineffective illicit drug policies as significantly higher than survey takers from other regions. It is also interesting that average responses from respondents based in Asia are clustered more densely together.
3.5
3.5
3
3
Figure 31: Comparison between Regions of Residence
4.5
4.5
4
4
3.5
3.5
3
3
Impact
4.5
Impact
4.5
Likelihood
3
3.5
4
4.5
Likelihood
Government
4.5
4
4
3.5
3.5
Likelihood
3
3.5
4
4.5
Likelihood
4
4.5
Likelihood
3
3.5
4
4.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Other
4.5
4.5
4
4
3.5
3.5
3
3
Middle East/North Africa
4.5
4.5
4
4
3.5
3.5
Impact
Latin America
3.5
Impact
3
3
NGO
Impact Likelihood
4.5
Section 5
Impact
3
4
Impact
4.5
3.5
International Organization
Impact
Europe
3
Section 4
Asia
Section 3
Figure 31, for instance, shows how respondents based in North America tend to rate many risks as having a higher likelihood than respondents in other regions. The dots are markedly further to the right in the scatter plot, and for a large number of risks the differences with other regions are statistically significant. These include chronic fiscal imbalances, prolonged infrastructure neglect, rising greenhouse gas emissions, diffusion of weapons of mass destruction and cyber attacks (see Appendix 2 for detailed results).
Likelihood
3.5
4
4.5
Likelihood
Source: World Economic Forum
Impact
Impact
3
3
Section 6
3
Likelihood
3
3.5
4
4.5
Likelihood
North America
3
3.5
4
4.5
4
4.5
Sub-Saharan Africa 4.5
4
4
3.5
3.5
3
3
Impact
Impact
4.5
Likelihood
3
3.5
4
4.5
Likelihood
3
3.5
Section 2
By Region of Residence
Source: World Economic Forum
Global Risks 2013
49