In an era dominated by unprecedented global challenges, the concept of a “polycrisis” has emerged at the forefront of scientific and policy discourse. Polycrisis refers to the simultaneous occurrence and interaction of multiple, interconnected crises that collectively threaten the stability of societies and ecosystems worldwide. This phenomenon transcends traditional notions of isolated disasters, presenting a complex web of systemic risks that demand novel frameworks for understanding, assessment, and management. The new editorial introduction by Renn, Shi, and Han, featured in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, serves as a seminal contribution to this burgeoning field of inquiry, outlining the multifaceted dimensions of polycrisis and urging an integrated approach to systemic risk mitigation.
The polycrisis framework elucidates how seemingly disparate crises—such as climate change, economic instability, geopolitical tensions, and pandemics—do not merely coexist but interact in ways that amplify their individual impacts. This interaction yields compounded effects that defy conventional risk management strategies. Unlike isolated events, polycrises are characterized by cascading failures where the destabilization in one domain triggers vulnerabilities in others, resulting in a nonlinear amplification of risk. For instance, a severe drought exacerbated by climate change can swiftly lead to food insecurity, which in turn fuels social unrest and political instability. Understanding these interdependencies is critical for developing resilient systems capable of absorbing shocks on multiple fronts.
Central to the discussion is the notion of systemic risks, which are risks that threaten the integrity of entire systems rather than isolated components. These risks are inherently difficult to quantify due to their complexity and the dynamic interplay of their constituent parts. Traditional risk assessment methodologies often fall short in accounting for the nonlinearity, feedback loops, and tipping points inherent in polycrisis scenarios. Renn and colleagues argue for a paradigm shift towards systemic risk governance that incorporates transdisciplinary insights from ecology, economics, sociology, and political science, among others. Such an approach is vital for anticipating emergent threats and crafting adaptive policy interventions.
One of the pivotal challenges outlined in the editorial is the identification and measurement of systemic vulnerabilities before they evolve into full-blown crises. Conventional early-warning systems and indicators typically focus on singular hazard events and fail to capture the subtle signals of interaction effects. Advancements in complexity science, network theory, and big data analytics offer promising avenues to address this gap. By leveraging these tools, researchers can map the interconnectivity within socio-ecological systems and detect potential nodes of systemic failure. The editorial highlights recent case studies where integrated modeling approaches have successfully forecasted cascading disruptions across sectors, illustrating the practical benefits of this evolving science.
The editorial also draws attention to the governance implications of polycrisis. Traditional hierarchical and siloed governance structures are often ill-equipped to manage the transboundary and cross-sectoral nature of systemic risks. Renn et al. advocate for collaborative governance frameworks that emphasize coordination, inclusivity, and flexibility. This involves engaging diverse stakeholders, including governments, civil society, scientific communities, and private sectors, in co-producing risk knowledge and co-designing resilient solutions. The polycrisis perspective recognizes that no single actor holds the expertise or authority to tackle these multifaceted challenges alone.
Moreover, the paper delves into the psychological and societal dimensions of polycrisis. Cognitive biases, misinformation, and risk perception disparities can hinder effective response strategies and erode public trust. In particular, the editorial underscores the importance of risk communication that transparently conveys uncertainties while fostering collective action. Behavioral science insights are crucial to designing communication campaigns that overcome skepticism and polarization, thereby strengthening community resilience and adaptive capacity. This social dimension is often overlooked yet is fundamental to successful risk governance.
The global reach of polycrisis necessitates international cooperation and knowledge exchange. The editorial points out that systemic risks respect no borders, with crises in one region often having ripple effects globally. The COVID-19 pandemic exemplifies this interconnectedness, where health, economic, and social systems worldwide were simultaneously strained. Building robust global risk governance architectures is essential for coordinated preparedness and response. Renn and colleagues call for bolstering multilateral institutions and mechanisms that can facilitate timely data sharing, joint scenario planning, and resource mobilization across countries.
Technology and innovation feature prominently in discussions about mitigating polycrisis impacts. From early detection systems employing artificial intelligence to decentralized renewable energy grids enhancing infrastructure resilience, technological advancements can provide critical leverage points. However, the editorial cautions against overreliance on technology without addressing underlying vulnerabilities and societal inequities. Technology must be integrated within holistic strategies that consider socioeconomic contexts and promote equity to avoid exacerbating marginalization during crises.
The concept of resilience is redefined within the polycrisis framework as the capacity not only to absorb shocks but also to adapt and transform in response to complex, evolving threats. Resilience-building entails fostering diversity in social and ecological systems, ensuring redundancy in critical infrastructure, and cultivating flexible institutions capable of learning and innovation. The editorial highlights emerging practices such as scenario-based planning, adaptive management, and stress testing across multiple dimensions as pathways to enhancing resilience in the face of systemic risks.
Financial systems are singled out as a critical arena where polycrisis impacts converge profoundly. Economic shocks triggered by environmental disasters, geopolitical conflicts, or pandemics can rapidly propagate through interconnected markets, destabilizing global supply chains and investment flows. The editorial stresses the urgency of incorporating systemic risk considerations into financial regulation and investment decision-making. Financial instruments aimed at risk transfer and risk reduction, such as catastrophe bonds and climate risk disclosure, are vital components of a comprehensive systemic risk management toolkit.
The editorial also emphasizes the ethical considerations embedded in polycrisis research and governance. Systemic risks often disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, raising questions of justice and fairness. Addressing polycrisis therefore requires integrating ethical frameworks that prioritize social equity and human rights. The authors advocate for inclusive risk governance that incorporates the voices and knowledge of marginalized communities, recognizing their roles as both risk bearers and key agents in resilience building.
Education and capacity building emerge as foundational elements to equip societies with the knowledge and skills necessary to navigate polycrisis landscapes. This includes interdisciplinary training for risk professionals, public education campaigns, and fostering a culture of preparedness and innovation. By cultivating a widespread systemic risk literacy, societies can enhance their collective ability to anticipate, respond to, and recover from complex crises.
Looking ahead, the editorial suggests that the field of polycrisis and systemic risks will continue to evolve rapidly as new challenges emerge and technologies advance. Continuous research is needed to refine diagnostic tools, develop predictive models, and explore innovative governance mechanisms. Building bridges between academia, policymakers, industry, and communities is essential to operationalize insights and transform systemic risk science into tangible societal benefits.
In summary, Renn, Shi, and Han’s editorial introduction articulates the pressing necessity to rethink disaster risk science through the lens of polycrisis and systemic risks. The multifaceted, interconnected nature of contemporary global threats requires a holistic, integrative, and transdisciplinary approach to risk governance. By recognizing the complexity and interdependence of crises, embracing collaborative governance, and investing in resilience, societies can better safeguard their futures against the mounting tide of systemic risks.
This editorial not only sets the stage for cutting-edge research featured in the special issue but also serves as a clarion call to action for scientists, policymakers, and citizens worldwide. As the polycrisis paradigm gains traction, its implications resonate far beyond the academic sphere, challenging us to transform how we perceive, prepare for, and respond to the intertwined crises that define our era.
Subject of Research: Polycrisis and Systemic Risks in Disaster Risk Science
Article Title: Editorial Introduction to the Special Issue on Polycrisis and Systemic Risks
Article References:
Renn, O., Shi, P. & Han, G. Editorial Introduction to the Special Issue on Polycrisis and Systemic Risks. Int J Disaster Risk Sci (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-025-00662-1
Image Credits: AI Generated
Tags: cascading failures in crisesclimate change and economic instabilityfood insecurity and social unrestgeopolitical tensions and pandemicsintegrated approach to risk assessmentinterconnected global challengesmultidimensional crisis interactionsnonlinear amplification of risksnovel frameworks for crisis understandingpolycrisis frameworksocietal stability and ecosystemssystemic risk management
