ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2025
Public Attitudes to Responding to Global Catastrophic Risks: A New Zealand Case Study.
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Public Attitudes to Responding to Global Catastrophic Risks: A New Zealand Case Study.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human civilization faces a range of global catastrophic risks (GCRs), including nuclear war, bioengineered pandemics, major solar storms, and uncontrolled artificial intelligence. In New Zealand, limited information exists on public views about whether the government should respond to such risks. A representative survey of 1012 adults in July 2024 included two questions on GCRs. Sixty-six percent (95%CI: 63%-70%) supported the government developing specific plans to address extreme risks, and 60% (95%CI: 56%-63%) supported establishing a dedicated commission or agency. In multivariable models, support increased with age, education, income, and trust in scientists (the latter also associated with support for an agency). There were no significant differences by gender, ethnicity, or political orientation. These findings suggest a clear majority of the public supports government planning for catastrophic risks. Further research, including repeat surveys and deliberative methods such as citizens' assemblies, could help explore underlying reasons for opposition and how the public weigh policy trade-offs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.