Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41978933›Full record

ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2026

Advancing Systemic Risk Assessment for Complex, Interdependent Systems: A Research Agenda.

Tom Logan, B Rachunok, K Hardaway, D Bristow, A Reilly, D Johnson, J Johansson, G Cremen, J Boakye, P Schweizer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Tom LoganDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9209-3018
B RachunokEdwards P. Fitts Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6405-978X
K HardawayDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
D BristowDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9295-4693
A ReillyDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7209-3566
D JohnsonDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Political Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2364-340X
J JohanssonDivision of Risk Management and Societal Safety, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
G CremenDepartment of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6699-7312
J BoakyeDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2505-7268
P SchweizerRIFS Research Institute of Sustainability, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2273-4366

Funding

HORIZON EUROPE Climate, Energy and Mobility 101147385Ministry for Business Innovation and EmploymentRoyal Society Te Apārangi
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Engineering risk assessment has traditionally focused on direct impacts to individual assets or systems. However, as society's most notable risks increasingly stem from complex, interdependent systems, conventional methods fail to capture the cascading consequences and deepening uncertainty. Addressing this gap requires developing or extending assessment methods. To guide such development and align research efforts, this paper introduces a taxonomy of risk assessment methods. The taxonomy classifies methods by their capability to assess different types of consequences and systemic behaviors. Tier 1 methods can assess direct, localized impacts; Tier 2 methods also capture cascading consequences in interconnected systems; Tier 3 methods also address emergent, transformative, and uncertain dynamics. We identify key system and knowledge characteristics that challenge existing methods and outline research priorities necessary to advance systemic risk assessment: Analyzing consequences, structuring uncertainty, evaluating trade-offs, strengthening causal inference, ensuring defensibility, and communicating results. This agenda aims to guide future research towards risk assessment methods suitable for the systemic risk challenges society increasingly faces.

Indexed as

cascading effectscomplex systemsinterdependenciesrisk assessment methodssystemic riskuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID41978933
PMCPMC13077526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.