The global landscape of the twenty-first century is increasingly shaped by an intricate web of interconnected crises.Such a system of crises—the polycrisis—is characterized by mutual amplification of nested and inte...The global landscape of the twenty-first century is increasingly shaped by an intricate web of interconnected crises.Such a system of crises—the polycrisis—is characterized by mutual amplification of nested and intertwined risks and requires novel approaches to analysis,assessment,and governance.展开更多
1 The Global Polycrisis The world is in the midst of a polycrisis,where multiple,interconnected crises are unfolding simultaneously,amplifying one another in unpredictable ways.This is not merely a confluence of indep...1 The Global Polycrisis The world is in the midst of a polycrisis,where multiple,interconnected crises are unfolding simultaneously,amplifying one another in unpredictable ways.This is not merely a confluence of independent crises,but rather an intricate web of interconnected challenges that collectively pose an unprecedented threat to human civilization and ecological systems.The interconnections between these risks,their geographical reach,and ability to exacerbate one another,have created a world of global systemic risk that is more serious,in terms of scale and severity,than risks we have encountered before.展开更多
This article describes a conceptual approach for effective,inclusive,and integrative governance to cope with polycrisis and systemic risks.These challenges arise from the high complexity of causal relationships,partic...This article describes a conceptual approach for effective,inclusive,and integrative governance to cope with polycrisis and systemic risks.These challenges arise from the high complexity of causal relationships,particularly when multiple risks are interconnected,leading to cascading and cross-boundary impacts.Uncertainty in these relationships further complicates mitigation efforts.Our approach focuses on critical elements of systemic risk governance,particularly the“risk governance triangle,”which connects persistent disruptive stressors,risk-absorbing systems,and contextual modifiers.These stressors can be physical(energy,substance,biota)or social(information,power)and interact with exposed targets influenced by their context.We decompose these circumstances into five layers,forming the Pagoda model:natural conditions,institutional arrangements,technical and social infrastructure,the built environment,and individual/social behavior.A central pillar of our proposal is prioritizing bottom-up policy making,creating common deliberative spaces that actively involve stakeholders and citizens.展开更多
With multiple risks interacting and shocks proliferating across geographies and sectors,the concept of polycrisis has come to the fore.Polycrisis describes interwoven and overlapping crises that cannot be understood o...With multiple risks interacting and shocks proliferating across geographies and sectors,the concept of polycrisis has come to the fore.Polycrisis describes interwoven and overlapping crises that cannot be understood or resolved in isolation.Analysts have suggested that many of the Polycrisis symptoms have been at least partially triggered by negative externalities,that is,costs arising from economic activity that are not covered by market prices and thus not internalized in national and international decision making,leading to suboptimal decisions on climate action,energy and food security,global financial stability,among others.Externalities have generally been framed as negative.Positive externalities,that is,societal benefits that indirectly arise from activities and transactions have less often been considered.International policy debate on disaster risk reduction(DRR)and climate change adaptation(CCA)over the last years,as stipulated by international compacts in 2015(the Sendai Framework,the SDGs,and the Paris Agreement),has built on positive externality discussion,albeit not explicitly so.Disaster risk reduction and CCA analysts have emphasized the need for orienting risk management investments towards interventions that generate so-called multiple or triple resilience dividends.This means extending the focus in decision making from avoiding and reducing impacts and risks to also considering development(co-)benefits arising irrespective of disaster event occurrence.In this context,the“Triple Dividend of Resilience”(TDR)concept and framework has suggested that in addition to risk reduction benefits(dividend 1),dividends would also arise from benefits associated with unlocked development(dividend 2)as well as from co-benefits(dividend 3),for example,from investments into disaster-safe and energy efficient housing.Yet,despite the increasing burdens imposed by systemic disaster and climate risks and wide-spread recognition of this concept over a decade as well as solid evidence regarding the benefits of reducing risk,it has remained difficult to motivate sustained investment across scales into disaster and climate risk reduction.We argue that this systemic underinvestment is,at least partially,due to a lack of conceptual clarity of the TDR with regard to the framing around the dividend 2,a lack of awareness and solid evidence on the positive externalities,as well as interrelationships between resilience dividends in space and time.Based on a snowballing review of the limited literature on the TDR as well as an examination of empirical and model-based evidence,we present the state of the art on the TDR framework.We examine the various dividends in terms of epistemological and methodological contributions building on empirical and modeling methods for supporting decision making as well as evidence for decision making across scales from local to global.Overall,we suggest that there indeed can be positive externalities and solid co-benefits from disaster and climate risk reduction.Systemic risk research and practice coupled with resilience dividend reasoning may thus help to better identify those dividends for improved decision making on disaster and climate risk(reduction).We further show how analysts and decision makers may better consider those various resilience dividends beyond the reduction of losses as well as assess dependencies in risk and benefits’creation across micro and macro scales.As we suggest,enhanced methods and better awareness for potential externalities may enable more comprehensive consideration of DRR and CCA interventions with benefits arising at various scales.This may eventually also lead to enhanced disaster risk and climate risk governance,which is key for tackling relevant risk challenges in a polycrisis context.展开更多
The emphasis of integrated disaster and risk research has shifted from topical analysis,such as dealing with natural hazardrelated disasters,technological accidents,or environmental crises,to a comprehensive analysis ...The emphasis of integrated disaster and risk research has shifted from topical analysis,such as dealing with natural hazardrelated disasters,technological accidents,or environmental crises,to a comprehensive analysis of interconnected and mutually interactive risk sources and crises.This interaction has often been framed in the language of“polycrisis”indicating the potentially amplifying and cascading effects of each crisis from one domain to the next.At the same time,the literature on systemic risk also includes the effects of multiple,interacting risks on the functionality and survivability of entire systems such as climate stability,cybersecurity,or energy production.This review article provides first a summary of the literature on both concepts,explicates the commonalities and differences and develops a risk and crisis concept that builds a bridge between the two research traditions.Based on this concept,the review delineates the implementations of a joint understanding of polycrisis and systemic risk for risk assessment,risk and crisis governance,and effective communication to different audiences.展开更多
文摘The global landscape of the twenty-first century is increasingly shaped by an intricate web of interconnected crises.Such a system of crises—the polycrisis—is characterized by mutual amplification of nested and intertwined risks and requires novel approaches to analysis,assessment,and governance.
文摘1 The Global Polycrisis The world is in the midst of a polycrisis,where multiple,interconnected crises are unfolding simultaneously,amplifying one another in unpredictable ways.This is not merely a confluence of independent crises,but rather an intricate web of interconnected challenges that collectively pose an unprecedented threat to human civilization and ecological systems.The interconnections between these risks,their geographical reach,and ability to exacerbate one another,have created a world of global systemic risk that is more serious,in terms of scale and severity,than risks we have encountered before.
基金support by the Graduate School of Advanced Integrated Studies in Human Survivability(GSAIS)and the Research Institute for Sustainable Humanosphere(RISH),Kyoto University.
文摘This article describes a conceptual approach for effective,inclusive,and integrative governance to cope with polycrisis and systemic risks.These challenges arise from the high complexity of causal relationships,particularly when multiple risks are interconnected,leading to cascading and cross-boundary impacts.Uncertainty in these relationships further complicates mitigation efforts.Our approach focuses on critical elements of systemic risk governance,particularly the“risk governance triangle,”which connects persistent disruptive stressors,risk-absorbing systems,and contextual modifiers.These stressors can be physical(energy,substance,biota)or social(information,power)and interact with exposed targets influenced by their context.We decompose these circumstances into five layers,forming the Pagoda model:natural conditions,institutional arrangements,technical and social infrastructure,the built environment,and individual/social behavior.A central pillar of our proposal is prioritizing bottom-up policy making,creating common deliberative spaces that actively involve stakeholders and citizens.
基金funding received from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program under grant agreement No.101056898(DECIPHER)the Zurich Climate Resilience Alliance。
文摘With multiple risks interacting and shocks proliferating across geographies and sectors,the concept of polycrisis has come to the fore.Polycrisis describes interwoven and overlapping crises that cannot be understood or resolved in isolation.Analysts have suggested that many of the Polycrisis symptoms have been at least partially triggered by negative externalities,that is,costs arising from economic activity that are not covered by market prices and thus not internalized in national and international decision making,leading to suboptimal decisions on climate action,energy and food security,global financial stability,among others.Externalities have generally been framed as negative.Positive externalities,that is,societal benefits that indirectly arise from activities and transactions have less often been considered.International policy debate on disaster risk reduction(DRR)and climate change adaptation(CCA)over the last years,as stipulated by international compacts in 2015(the Sendai Framework,the SDGs,and the Paris Agreement),has built on positive externality discussion,albeit not explicitly so.Disaster risk reduction and CCA analysts have emphasized the need for orienting risk management investments towards interventions that generate so-called multiple or triple resilience dividends.This means extending the focus in decision making from avoiding and reducing impacts and risks to also considering development(co-)benefits arising irrespective of disaster event occurrence.In this context,the“Triple Dividend of Resilience”(TDR)concept and framework has suggested that in addition to risk reduction benefits(dividend 1),dividends would also arise from benefits associated with unlocked development(dividend 2)as well as from co-benefits(dividend 3),for example,from investments into disaster-safe and energy efficient housing.Yet,despite the increasing burdens imposed by systemic disaster and climate risks and wide-spread recognition of this concept over a decade as well as solid evidence regarding the benefits of reducing risk,it has remained difficult to motivate sustained investment across scales into disaster and climate risk reduction.We argue that this systemic underinvestment is,at least partially,due to a lack of conceptual clarity of the TDR with regard to the framing around the dividend 2,a lack of awareness and solid evidence on the positive externalities,as well as interrelationships between resilience dividends in space and time.Based on a snowballing review of the limited literature on the TDR as well as an examination of empirical and model-based evidence,we present the state of the art on the TDR framework.We examine the various dividends in terms of epistemological and methodological contributions building on empirical and modeling methods for supporting decision making as well as evidence for decision making across scales from local to global.Overall,we suggest that there indeed can be positive externalities and solid co-benefits from disaster and climate risk reduction.Systemic risk research and practice coupled with resilience dividend reasoning may thus help to better identify those dividends for improved decision making on disaster and climate risk(reduction).We further show how analysts and decision makers may better consider those various resilience dividends beyond the reduction of losses as well as assess dependencies in risk and benefits’creation across micro and macro scales.As we suggest,enhanced methods and better awareness for potential externalities may enable more comprehensive consideration of DRR and CCA interventions with benefits arising at various scales.This may eventually also lead to enhanced disaster risk and climate risk governance,which is key for tackling relevant risk challenges in a polycrisis context.
基金the JST SICOPR(JPMJSC2310),Japanthe National Natural Science Foundation of China(Grant No.72304039)。
文摘The emphasis of integrated disaster and risk research has shifted from topical analysis,such as dealing with natural hazardrelated disasters,technological accidents,or environmental crises,to a comprehensive analysis of interconnected and mutually interactive risk sources and crises.This interaction has often been framed in the language of“polycrisis”indicating the potentially amplifying and cascading effects of each crisis from one domain to the next.At the same time,the literature on systemic risk also includes the effects of multiple,interacting risks on the functionality and survivability of entire systems such as climate stability,cybersecurity,or energy production.This review article provides first a summary of the literature on both concepts,explicates the commonalities and differences and develops a risk and crisis concept that builds a bridge between the two research traditions.Based on this concept,the review delineates the implementations of a joint understanding of polycrisis and systemic risk for risk assessment,risk and crisis governance,and effective communication to different audiences.
