Coping with Persistent Disruptive Stressors and Polycrisis: Community-Based Policy Making and Local Empowerment

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Mediative policy style / Pagoda model / Persistent disruptive stressors / Polycrisis / SMART Governance / Systemic risk governance

References

[1] ArkorfulVE, LuguB, HammondA, BasiruI. Decentralization and citizens’ participation in local governance: Does trust and transparency matter?—An empirical study. Forum for Development Studies, 2021, 48(2): 199-223.

[2] BacheI, BartleI, FlindersMAnsellC, TurfingJ. Multi-level governance. Handbook on theories of governance, 2016, Cheltenham. Edward Elgar Publishing. 486498

[3] BächtigerA, SetälaM, GrönlundKGrönlundK, BächtigerA, SetäläM. Towards a new era of deliberative mini-publics. Deliberative mini-publics: Involving citizens in the democratic process, 2014, Colchester, UK. ECPR Press. 225246

[4] BenzA, PapadopoulosIBenzA, PapadopoulosI. Introduction: Governance and democracy: Concepts and key issues. Governance and democracy: Comparing national, European and international experiences, 2006, New York. Routledge. 329.

[5] BergerD. SK-Prinzip–Systemisches Konsensieren 2.0. Konfliktdynamik, 2019, 8(2): 154-157.

[6] Bergk, F., F. Dünnebeil, H. Hertle, E. Rechsteiner, and P. Wachter. 2022. Roadmap climate action for Erlangen: Interrim report (Fahrplan Klima-Aufbruch Erlangen. Zwischenbericht 2022) Erlangen: Amt für Umweltschutz und Energiefragen.

[7] Biegelbauer, P., and J. Hansen. 2023. Democratic theory and citizen participation: Democracy models in the evaluation of public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy 38(8). https://cyberleninka.org/article/n/270781.

[8] BrandT, BlokV, VerweijM. Stakeholder dialogue as agonistic deliberation: Exploring the role of conflict and self-interest in business-NGO interaction. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2019, 30(1): 3-30.

[9] BusenbergGJ. Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy. Policy Sciences, 1999, 32(1): 1-11.

[10] City of Erlangen. 2019. Minutes of the 5th session of the community council (Niederschrift 5. Sitzung des Stadtrates). StR/005/2019.

[11] City of Erlangen. 2020. Minutes of the 7th session of the community council (Niederschrift 7. Sitzung des Stadtrates). StR/012/2020.

[12] ComfortL, BoinA, DemchakCCDesigning resilience—Preparing for extreme events, 2010, Pittsburgh, PA. University of Pittsburgh Press.

[13] DayAThe forever crisis: Adaptive global governance for an era of accelerating complexity, 2024, Abingdon, UK. Taylor & Francis. .

[14] De Goër de HerveM, SchinkoT, HandmerJ. Risk justice: Boosting the contribution of risk management to sustainable development. Risk Analysis, 2023.

[15] DjalanteR. Adaptive governance and resilience: The role of multi-stakeholder platforms in disaster risk reduction. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2012, 12(9): 2923-2942.

[16] ErhardtJ, WamslerS, FreitagM. National identity between democracy and autocracy: A comparative analysis of 24 countries. European Political Science Review, 2021, 13(1): 59-76.

[17] FischerFLevi-FaurD. Participatory governance: From theory to practice. The Oxford handbook of governance, 2012, Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press. 457471

[18] FraserED, DougillAJ, MabeeWE, ReedM, McAlpineP. Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 2006, 78(2): 114-127.

[19] GardnerR, OstromE, WalkerJ. The nature of common-pool resource problems. Rationality and Society, 1990, 2(3): 335-358.

[20] IRGC (International Risk Governance Center). 2018. Guidelines for the governance of systemic risks. Lausanne: IRGC. https://doi.org/10.5075/epfl-irgc-257279. Accessed 6 Jul 2025.

[21] IRGC (International Risk Governance Center)Introduction to the IRGC risk governance framework, revised version, 2019, Lausanne. EPFL International Risk Governance Center.

[22] KoontzTM, NewigJ. From planning to implementation: Top-down and bottom-up approaches for collaborative watershed management. Policy Studies Journal, 2014, 42(3): 416-442.

[23] LadeSJ, SteffenW, de VriesW, CarpenterSR, DongesJF, GertenD, HoffH, NewboldT, et al.. Human impacts on planetary boundaries amplified by Earth system interactions. Nature Sustainability, 2020, 3(2): 119-128.

[24] LafontCDemocracy without shortcuts: A participatory conception of deliberative democracy, 2019, Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press. .

[25] Lawrence, M., S. Janzwood, and T. Homer-Dixon. 2022. What is a global polycrisis? And how is it different from a systemic risk? Version 2.0. Discussion Paper No. 2022–4, 1–10. https://cascadeinstitute.org/technical-paper/what-is-a-global-polycrisis/. Accessed 7 Jul 2025.

[26] Lawrence, M., T. Homer-Dixon, S. Janzwood, J. Rockstöm, O. Renn, and J.F. Donges. 2024. Global polycrisis: The causal mechanisms of crisis entanglement. Global Sustainability 7. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2024.1.

[27] Liu, H., and O. Renn. 2025. Polycrisis and systemic risk: Assessment, governance, and communication. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 16(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-025-00636-3.

[28] Loorbach, D. 2007. Transition management: New mode of governance for sustainable development. North 193(4). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/35149475_Transition_Management_New_Mode_of_Governance_for_Sustainable_Development. Accessed 6 Jul 2025.

[29] MarshRM. Authoritarian and democratic transitions in national political systems. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 1991, 32(3–4): 219-232.

[30] MillerMK. Don’t call it a comeback: Autocratic ruling parties after democratization. British Journal of Political Science, 2021, 51(2): 559-583.

[31] MosleyJE, WongJ. Decision-making in collaborative governance networks: Pathways to input and throughput legitimacy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2021, 31(2): 328-345.

[32] NaJ, OkadaN, HargonoB, LegonoD, UehataN. A challenge of mutual knowledge development in implementation of the Yonmenkaigi system for sand mining management in local community of Merapi Volcano. Journal of Natural Disaster Science, 2009, 31(2): 79-91.

[33] NorrisFH, StevensSP, PfefferbaumB, WycheKF, PfefferbaumRL. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capabilities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 2008, 41: 127-150.

[34] O’BrienG, O’KeefeP, GademaZ, SwordsJ. Approaching disaster management through social learning. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 2010, 19(4): 498-508.

[35] OkadaN. Urban diagnosis and integrated disaster risk management. Journal of Natural Disaster Science, 2004, 26(2): 49-54

[36] OkadaN. Adaptive process for SMART community governance under persistent disruptive risks. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2018, 9: 454-463.

[37] OkadaNShimizuM. SMART governance under persistent disruptive stressors to enhance community’s dynamic resilience: Case of Chizu Town, Japan. A resilience approach to acceleration of sustainable development goals, 2022, Berlin. Springer. 81101.

[38] Okada, N. 2022b. Reexamining perspectives, and road mapping for exploring IDRiM research horizons—Another integrative modeling efforts. IDRiM Lecture #1, 24 June 2022.

[39] OkadaN, FangL, KilgourDM. Community-based decision making in Japan. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2013, 22: 45-52.

[40] OkadaN, GobleR, SeoK, HanG. Implementation gaps are persistent phenomena in disaster risk management: A perspective developed after discussions at IDRiM 2022. IDRiM Journal, 2023, 13(1): 69-99.

[41] Oppold, D., and O. Renn. 2022. Citizens’ councils at national level—Findings and recommendations for action (Bürgerräte auf nationaler Ebene—Erkenntnisse und Handlungsempfehlungen). In Being heard. New ways of citizen participation (Gehört werden. Neue Wege der Bürgerbeteiligung), ed. T. Hauser, and D. Winkler, 68–86. Stuttgart: Kohlkammer.

[42] Oppold, D., and O. Renn. 2023. Participatory climate politics: How stakeholder and citizen participation can be successfully designed (Partizipative Klimapolitik: Wie die Integration von Stakeholder- und Bürger*innenbeteiligung gelingen kann). dms—der moderne staat—Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management 16(1): 1–23.

[43] PapadopoulosILevi-FaurD. The democratic quality of collaborative governance. The Oxford handbook of governance, 2012, Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press. 512526

[44] PatonD, OkadaN, SagalaS. Understanding preparedness for natural hazards: A cross cultural comparison. IDRiM Journal, 2013, 3(1): 1-18.

[45] Radtke, J., and O. Renn. 2024. Policy styles in and for energy transitions: Role and function of participation in democratic governance systems. Energy Research and Social Science 118: Article 103743.

[46] RadtkeJ, WursterS. Multilevel governance of energy transitions in Europe: Addressing wicked problems of coordination, justice, and power in energy policy. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 2023, 33(2): 139-155.

[47] ReidR, BotterillLC. The multiple meanings of “Resilience”: An overview of the literature. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 2013, 72(1): 31-40.

[48] RennORisk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world, 2008, London. Earthscan.

[49] RennO. A comment to Ragnar Lofstedt: Risks versus hazards. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2011, 2(3): 197-202.

[50] Renn, O. 2021. Transdisciplinarity: Synthesis towards a modular approach. Futures 130: Article 102744.

[51] Renn, O. 2024. Systemic risks and polycrisis: The need for an integrative approach. In An interdisciplinary discourse on regulation. Biotic self-regulation: Model for man-made systems?, ed. W. Haber, M. Grambow, and P. Wilderer, 25–29. Munich: Technical University Munich.

[52] RennO, SchweizerP-JRennO, UlmerF, DeckertA. Inclusive governance for energy policy making: Conceptual foundations, applications, and lessons learned. The role of public participation in energy transitions, 2020, Amsterdam. Elsevier Academic Press. 3979.

[53] RennO, LaubichlerM, LucasK, SchanzeJ, ScholzR, SchweizerP-J. Systemic risks from different perspectives. Risk Analysis, 2022, 42(9): 1902-1920.

[54] RennO, LucasK, HaasA, JaegerC. Things are different today: The challenge of global systemic risks. Journal of Risk Research, 2019, 22(4): 401-415.

[55] RichardsonJ, GustafssonG, JordanGRichardsonJ. The concept of policy style. Policy styles in Western Europe, 1982, London. George Allen & Unwinn. 116

[56] SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies)Strategic crisis management in the European Union, 2022, Berlin. SAPEA.

[57] SchafftKA, GreenwoodD. Promises and dilemmas of participation: Action research, search conference methodology, and community development. Journal of the Community Development, 2003, 34(1): 18-35

[58] SchweizerP-J. Systemic risks—Concepts and challenges for risk governance. Journal of Risk Research, 2021, 24(1): 78-93.

[59] SchweizerP-J, GobleR, RennO. Social perception of systemic risks. Risk Analysis, 2021, 42(7): 1455-1471.

[60] SetäläM. Connecting deliberative mini-publics to representative decision making. European Journal of Political Research, 2017, 56: 46-63.

[61] ShiP, XuW, YeT, WangJ. Developing disaster risk science—Discussion on the risk reduction implementation science. Journal of Natural Disaster Risk Science, 2011, 32(2): 79-88.

[62] Soler-Anguiano, F.L., S. Rivera-Aragón, and R. Díaz-Loving. 2023. Cross-cultural measurement invariance evidence of individualism and collectivism: From the idiosyncratic to universal. Frontiers in Psychology 14: Article 1150757.

[63] SteffenW, CrutzenPJ, McNeillJR. The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature. Ambio, 2007, 36(8): 614-621.

[64] StoneF. Deconstructing silos and supporting collaboration. Employment Relations Today, 2004, 31(1): 11-18.

[65] Sultana, F. 2023. Whose growth in whose planetary boundaries? Decolonizing planetary justice in the Anthropocene. Geo: Geography and Environment 10(2): Article e00128.

[66] TàbaraJD, ChabayI. Coupling human information and knowledge systems with social-ecological systems change: Reframing research, education, and policy for sustainability. Environmental Science & Policy, 2013, 28: 71-81.

[67] TurnhoutE, MetzeT, WybornC, KlenkN, LouderE. The politics of co-production: Participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2020, 42: 15-21.

[68] WachingerG, RennO, BeggC, KuhlickeC. The risk perception paradox—Implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 2013, 33(6): 1049-1065.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s)