Introduction
The concept risk management and risk governance varies depending on the context under which it is looked at and the stakeholders involved. Scientists, politicians, entrepreneurs, and the general public all have different perceptions of the issue of risk management based on the risk factor in focus. Risks can be broadly classified as natural risks or manmade risks. Scientists will often focus on using technology to assess and address risks based on the empirical studies conducted (Gruyer 2002).
They believe in predicting the risks before they occur, determining their patterns, and coming up with effective solutions that will effectively overcome these risks. The government will often seek to come up with mitigation measures that are driven by political interests. The main focus of the government is often the political consequences of the approach that they use to manage risks that take place in the society (Marchi & Ravetz 1999). The entrepreneurs or the business class are often concerned about the need to maintain the profitability of their firms when addressing the risks.
Their golden rule is often to protect their firm’s profits as much as possible. The general public is often concerned about their safety and security. They want every measure taken to assure them of their security at all times when managing risks. These conflicting primary goals in risk management and governance often bring complications when handling major issues such as climate change. The world is facing a new threat of climate change that is not only affecting the developing nations but also the developed countries. The recent droughts in California, flash floods in Japan, and Cyclones in South America are all attributed to climate change (Ahrens & Rudolph 2006).
These episodes claimed many lives and led to massive destruction of properties. They continue posing a serious threat to the society all over the world. Having proper ways of managing these risks is, therefore, very important. In this paper, the researcher seeks to find out what risk management of natural hazards teaches us about the issues associated with risk governance.
Climate Change
Climate change has become a major concern in the global society as it has become apparent that the weather patterns and various natural factors are changing in a manner that poses a threat to the existence of humanity. According to Renn (2008, p. 56), climate change refers to “a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period. Scientists and environmentalists raised alarm several years ago about the unsustainable trend that the weather pattern was taking.
The scientists explained that the increasing temperatures all over the world caused by greenhouse gases (GHG) may lead to serious impacts on the global climate. However, their warnings were ignored by the business communities, the political class, and the general public. Beck (2006) says that many people could not understand what these scientists meant when they talked about global warming and climate change. They could not understand how the massive emission of carbon into the air had an impact on the climate.
However, the recent events around the world have demonstrated to the global society that indeed climate change is real and its threat to the global society can no longer be ignored. The recent reports show climate change has not spared any country. According to Gramelsberger and Feichter (2011), a string of destructive cyclones, polluted air, a change in the weather pattern, reduction of polar ice, and drought are some of the consequences of this climate change. The changing pattern of climate demonstrates that it is caused by excessive pollution from the industrial sectors, especially in the industrialized countries.
Scientists have reported that climate change is not only caused by the emissions of greenhouse gases and destruction of the vegetative cover, but also other natural causes which are beyond the control human. However, the activities that people engage in are largely considered to be speeding up this process at unprecedented rates (Hutter & Power 2005). Industrialization is one of the major causes of climate change because of the massive emission of carbon into the atmosphere.
The massive emission of carbon into the air causes a greenhouse effect which automatically increases the global temperatures. This means that the polar ice get to melt, increasing the level of water in the ocean. Deforestation is another problem that is directly linked with climate change. Nature knows how to regulate its elements. Trees are meant to take up excessive carbon released by other living organisms.
It is, therefore, very unfortunate that the forest cover all over the world has been reducing at alarming rates, especially in developing countries where wood fuel is still a major source of energy. It means that human activities have created a deliberate imbalance between carbon emission and carbon consumption in the natural environment (Demos 2004). More of the carbon is emitted, but only an insignificant amount is naturally taken up by the vegetative cover. The trend has had a devastating impact on the ozone layer, enhancing climate change.
The impact of climate change has been dire. According to Irwin, Jensen, and Jones (2010), for a long time, it was believed that it is only the developing countries that may get seriously affected by climate change because they have not developed strong systems and structures to deal with natural disasters such as drought, earthquakes, storms, floods, and such other risks associated with climate change. These developing countries are indeed the worst affected by climate change. Africa is now struggling with food insecurity because of the prolonged cases of drought. People are starving in horns of Africa and many others are left to rely on donations.
Climate change has also had a serious impact on energy security in Africa as forests become scarce and the continent is not yet prepared to use renewable sources of energy effectively (Lahsen 2005). However, the developed nations have not been spared either. Some of the most industrialized nations around the world have experienced some of the worst cases of natural calamities in the modern world’s history. It is, therefore, not a surprise that China, the country leading in the emission of greenhouse gases, has experienced some of the worst effects of climate change. There are instances when women and children are forced to stay indoors, especially in the morning and evening hours because of the high levels of pollutants in the air (Miller & Edwards 2001).
Major cities of China such as Shanghai and Beijing have been affected. The neighboring country of Japan recently registered one of the worst earthquakes to have ever been recorded. Buildings were destroyed, people were killed, and many others survived but with life-changing injuries. Japan has also witnessed some of the worst cases of cyclones which have also killed many people and destroyed many properties.
The United States of America is not spared from these negative consequences of climate change. One part of the country, the state of California, is currently experiencing one of the worst cases of drought in its history, a trend that is threatening to change the way of life in the entire state. The availability of clean water for domestic and industrial use is becoming an issue as some of the major dams start registering a significant reduction in their water levels. Water rationing and water recycling are now being considered as some of the steps that the state may have to take to address the current problem (Okereke, Bulkeley, & Schroeder 2008).
On the other hand, parts of the United States have experienced flash floods that have swept across some of the major cities causing death, destruction, and serious injuries for the survivors. Some small island countries have already registered complaints with the United Nations that they are chocking as a significant part of their land is claimed by the rising sea waters. There is no single country that is safe from the risk of climate change.
It is, therefore, very understandable that the global society has come to appreciate the need to address this problem. In 2015 COP 21, also known as the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, was held and is currently underway with the primary aim of achieving a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, to keep global warming below 2° C. Many countries, especially the developing nations which are worst hit by this problem of global warming, hope that there will be consensus this time around. This is just the latest of a series of other conferences that have brought together world leaders as they try to find solutions to the climate change problem that is affecting the global society (Perrow 1999). It is important to review how the global society and individual nations have been trying to deal with the problem of climate change to get some lessons about the issues associated with risk governance.
Risk governance and risk management issues
Risk governance is a complex process that involved identifying the source of the threat, analyzing the threat itself, determining its magnitude, coming up with ways of mitigating it, and passing relevant communications to the relevant stakeholders so that people and property do not get adversely affected (Walker, Whittle, & Tweed 2014). Different scholars have defined risk governance and risk management in different ways based on several factors.
The perspective of scientists in risk governance may be very different from that of a businessperson or a politician (Tierney 2011). Each of these stakeholders would often ensure that they approach risk governance from a perspective that is relevant to them and that which they understand best. Different risks may require different approaches to management. However, there are some conventional guidelines and principles that are often followed in risk management.
For instance, it is widely believed among the multidisciplinary stakeholders that risk governance involves the collection of data, conducting the relevant analysis, and communicating the information to the relevant parties to avoid any adverse effect on people and property. It is also believed that risk governance must embrace fundamental principles of transparency, accountability, effectiveness, efficiency, strategic focus, equity and fairness, sustainability, political and legal feasibility, and respect for the rule of law (Turner 2009).
Climate change, being one of the natural hazards that the global society has to deal with today, must be managed in a way that will make its impacts less devastating to the global community. Managing climate change is not a simple process. Finding the right solution requires a deliberate effort of a serious of stakeholders and participation of the global society (Wachinger, Renn, Begg, & Kuhlicke 2013). The United States, European Union, China, Japan, and India account for over 75% emission of greenhouse gases into the global atmosphere. However, when it comes to managing climate change, these countries need the support of the global society to achieve success.
They need Africa to stop the wanton destruction of the vegetative cover, Asia to engage actively in reforestation, Europe and Americas to reduce their emissions of carbon and the Oceanic to be involved in the fight against high levels of carbon in the air.
Managing the risk of climate change has for a long time taken a political approach, but it is apparent that this approach has yielded little fruits as witnessed in the way nations ignored the Kyoto Protocol that was meant to regulate the amount of greenhouse gases that each country emitted per given period. According to Cheng (2009), the policies developed at Kyoto were excellent in dealing with the problem of climate change. However, it was unfortunate that the implementation was so poor because of the vested political interests. The people who were trusted to implement the policy allowed themselves to be influenced by the corporate society and by the need to retain their political offices. As such, good policies that would have helped in dealing with the global problem of climate change were ignored, and the problem continued to get worse.
The recent international efforts to manage climate change have been shifting from the political approach to the legal approach. The lack of political goodwill in some of the state parties has left the stakeholders with no choice but to come up with legally binding policies. The 2015 Paris Climate Conference, also known as 2015 COP 21 was focused on finding legal solutions. The state parties were trying to come up with a maximum limit within which a country could emit greenhouse gases. The conference made a raft of recommendation which if implemented effectively, can help in fighting climate change and in making some of the climate change risks less devastating.
The conference, though dubbed the party of the willing, sought to come up with measures that will restrict the indiscriminate destruction of nature by the industrial sector. The massive emissions of GHG by the Chinese industrial sector are also affecting the rest of the world, not just the Chinese (Büthe & Mattli 2011). The same is the case with every other country around the world. The countries must, therefore, appreciate that they owe the world some sense of responsibility and that their activities must be in line with the global expectations in relevance to the protection of nature.
Managing climate change risks has followed the pattern described above of identifying the risks, analyzing it, and then communicating it to the global society in the pattern proposed above. The scientists have already collected the data needed, analyzed it, and made an informed conclusion about it. The information has been made available to the relevant stakeholders who need to act upon the decision presented to them (Marjolein & Ortwin 2011).
Other than the reduction of the emission of the greenhouse gases, which has been the main focus in the recent past, there has also been an effort to plant trees. The findings of the scientists made from the analysis of their collected data have shown that the wanton destruction of vegetative cover, especially in various parts of Africa, has worsened the problem of climate change. As a result, part of the solution to this problem has been to promote tree planting all over the world (Thompson & Rayner 2002). Restoring the natural balance has been determined to be one of the most effective ways of managing climate change hazards.
Developed countries such as the United States, Germany, Japan, and China can have disaster response and management mechanisms to deal with natural disasters that are associated with climate change. However, taking such initiatives will be unfair to other developing nations that are not capable of having such strong structures and systems of managing such threats. The recent drought in parts of the United States, massive air pollution in major cities of China, and the terrible cyclones that killed several people in Japan is also a clear message that having disaster response systems is not the solution to this problem (Berke 1998).
Climate change risks are serious, they are global, and have devastating impact that a country cannot easily deal with sustainable even if it is rich. As such, the only way of addressing the problem is to accept that we are a global society that faces a global problem and that the problem can only be solved from a united front.
Society’s Role in Shaping Risk Governance and Risk Management of Climate Change
Risk management of climate change requires the involvement of the entire society. According to Van and Renn (2011), climate change, unlike other natural and manmade hazards, cannot be addressed from a passive point of view where parties get prepared for a disaster to occur by putting various measures of managing it in place. As discussed above, even the richest countries in the world cannot effectively deal with the problem of climate change.
Taking a passive role will mean the elimination of the entire humanity if the recent trends are anything to go by, especially the effect of cyclones which are directly associated with climate change. Every stakeholder must be pragmatic and determined to find solutions that can permanently address this problem. According to Gidden (2008), managing climate change cannot be done overnight.
It is a systematic process that starts with the change of attitude among the stakeholders and moves to the deliberate effort of eliminating or reducing the environmental stressors, then having measures that can help protect the environment. Leiserowitz (2006) says that these measures must be taken concurrently. As society struggles to reduce emissions, the industrial sector must be committed to reducing its emissions into the environment by finding ways of using green energy in its operations. As such, every stakeholder has a specific role to play in climate management. These different roles must be done effectively to achieve the expected results. In this section, the researcher will look at the roles of individual stakeholders in the governance of risk of climate change.
Role of scientists in decision-making process around climate change
Scientists are the most critical stakeholders in risk management of climate change. According to Power (2004), climate change is a natural problem that is best understood by the scientists. Long before the current impact of climate change had started, scientists had started sounding a warning of the impending danger of environmental pollution and the expected change in climate patterns. It was not easy for the rest of the society to believe the arguments put forth by the scientists.
The corporate world dismissed their warnings. However, it has been proven that indeed what they had predicted is what is taking place and with the exact magnitude. These scientists have also predicted that if the current events are not controlled, then the natural environment will not be able to sustain life anymore. In this section, it will be important to critically analyze the role played by scientists in managing the risk of climate change.
Scientists play an important role in collecting data needed in making decisions about climate change. The problem of climate change is scientific and cannot be easily understood by the rest of society. It is the scientists who are capable of collecting data about the changing climate patterns, the possible causes of these changes, and agents involved. Data collection needs a team of experts from various fields who can study climatic conditions and how they are affected by various environmental patterns. According to Mills (2011), data collection of climate-related factors may take years.
The scientists may need to take time to monitor the trends and determine the actors that cause the trend when collecting data. One of the biggest advantages in data collection by scientists is that they are often guided by scientific facts and not personal opinions, views of the majority, or any other reasons that may make it necessary to hide the truth. When not influenced by other parties negatively, the data collected by the scientists are always accurate.
Once they collect the data, then they get to the complex task of analyzing it to come up with specific findings. Analysis of data often involves bringing various interrelated factors together to have an explanation of why a given trend is taking place the way it does. For instance, the analysis of the drought in California must involve an understanding of the actors, how they act collectively and individually to cause the drought, and what measures can be taken to mitigate it (Grabosky 2014). The analysis will also involve determining why other parts of the country are not affected by this problem and if they may face the same problem shortly.
When analyzing the dangerous cyclones that struck the coastal regions of Japan recently, the analysis will start by looking at the massive earthquakes in the high seas that caused the cyclone, what caused the earthquakes, whether or not such earthquakes may occur soon, and if the impact will most likely be the same. As Tierney (2012) says, the analysis must be broad and must involve various experts. Environmental experts, especially those that are involved with the natural habitats such as forests, must also be involved in the analysis so that comprehensive information can be obtained from the analysis.
Once the analysis of the data has been done, then the scientists must get into the final stage of communicating this information to the relevant audience. This may appear to be the easiest task because it does not involve complex data collection or analysis. However, Bartley (2003) warns that it is the most challenging task, but very important. When data has been collected, analyzed, and a report written, it is often the hope of the scientists that the information will be used by the policymakers to guide in their decision-making processes.
If the recommendations made by the scientists are not taken into consideration by the policymakers, then the entire work they did becomes meaningless (Chukwumerije, Bulkeley, & Schroeder 2009). It is, therefore, important for these scientists to come up with ways of breaking down their complex scientific findings into simple explanations that can be understood by their audience. The scientists must also ensure that their findings are presented in a very convincing manner.
The target audience must be convinced of the report to support it. This may be challenging because some of the important stakeholders who must always be convinced to support such findings are the corporate leaders. The scientists must explain to them why the trends may affect their sustainability shortly and what can be done to address the current problem to make their businesses sustainable (Gili & Meyer 2008). To the political class, the scientists must ensure that the reports meet present and future political needs. This delicate balancing of the report by the scientists when presenting their final findings must be based on truth. There must be no attempts to manipulate facts because this may affect the overall credibility of the report.
Ways in which political decisions can impact the decision-making process related to climate change
The politicians are very important stakeholders in the fight against global climate change because of their strategic positions as heads of governments. Politicians at various levels play an important role in influencing the final decisions made in addressing the problem of climate change. This is the case in countries having democratic and dictatorial governments. China and Russia are communists’ states that are still controlled by a few elites who dictate how things are governed.
China, for instance, controls a big share of the country’s economy through ownership of very large companies. The political class has massive control over the activities taking place in the country (Abbott & Snidal 2013). When the government makes a decision, then the other stakeholders may not easily resist, especially given the high-handedness that have been witnessed in the recent past when it comes to crushing dissenting voices in China. It means that the political class in countries such as China has absolute power in controlling activities related to climate change. The government has the power to give regulatory policies concerning the amount of greenhouse gases that each company can release.
In democratic countries like the United States, the political class is also powerful, only that the power is spread to various leaders. For instance, the presidency, the Senate, and the Congress control almost all the decisions made in the United States. These are institutions made of politicians and are very powerful in defining the policies that the country embraces (Bartley 2007). In the fight against climate change, these three institutions must be committed to the fight.
The Senate and the Congress are responsible for enacting laws in this country. The findings made by the scientists will be presented to the two Houses so that they can be debated and a possible piece of legislation made. It is in the interest of the scientists that their policy recommendations are transformed into pieces of legislation because it is only at that level that there will be an assurance that the implementation will be done.
The presidency must also be committed to fighting climate change, and therefore, must support the two houses by approving the bills presented to the presidency so that they can become laws. The close coordination, commitment, openness, and ethical practice is what most of the politicians are lacking in the fight against climate change (Bennie 1998). They may reject a bill not because it does not address environmental concerns, but simply because it does not effectively address their political interests. In other instances, they may support an environmental bill not because it offers the best solution, but because it appears to be politically relevant. Commitment and ethics are necessary to ensure that political solutions to climate change problems are fully addressed.
It is also important to note that unlike other stakeholders, the political class has a means of ensuring that policies that they set are implemented. They control instruments of enforcement, the authority as the rulers, and financial capacity, making them the most powerful players in the fight against climate change. Various government agencies are responsible for environmental protection (Black 2001). These agencies can be involved in implementing the policies and laws developed to help manage climate change at the national level. Every government must commit its instruments in the fight against climate change.
According to Black (2008), there is also the influence that the political class has on the general public. Most of the politicians often have a huge following in the areas where they are elected hence they can have an impact on the activities of the individual electorates. Their political utterance may heavily influence the decision-making process related to climate change. For instance, their constant support for tree planting can help in fighting deforestation, especially in the developing nations where wood fuel is still a primary source of energy.
Ways in which insurance acts as a contributor to enhancing the role of climate change
The business community such as the insurance companies also has a major role to play in the fight against climate change. According to Braithwaite (2008), the problems that have been witnessed in the fight against climate change are associated with deeply rooted business interests. India recently rejected some of the proposed policies at the COP 21 that were held in Paris, France in December 2015. The major argument that it gave was that some of the policies may affect the country’s industrial sector. China rejected the Kyoto Protocol because it felt that it would affect its industrial sector. It is, therefore, clear that the business sector has a major role to play in the fight against climate change. Corporate leaders must find ways of ensuring that they continue with their production without posing any threat to the environment.
The insurance sector is often involved in the mitigation of both natural and manmade hazards. According to Büthe (2010), the contribution of the insurance sector can be considered both negative and positive depending on the approach taken. On one end, insurance companies play a significant role in compensating individuals and organizations that are affected by climate change-related hazards, making it possible for them to continue operations afterward. However, having an assurance of compensation may make the stakeholders less committed to finding lasting solutions to the problem of climate change.
Lessons learned from risk management of climate change
Several lessons have been drawn about risk management of climate change that teaches us a lot on issues associated with risk governance. One of the most important lessons is that risk governance requires teamwork. All the involved stakeholders must come together and act as one in finding solutions and implementing policies based on the findings made. It is also clear that risk governance is a continuous process.
The parties involved must be committed to meeting the changing needs in addressing the problem. It is also clear that risk governance requires creativity. New challenges keep on emerging and it is only through creativity and innovation that proper solutions can be achieved (Brenkert 2010).
The parties should often treat every hazard as unique to develop unique ways of addressing it. The analysis also shows that it is better to put measures that can stop risks from taking place that having measures to deal with it when it occurs. The government can’t have measures that can mitigate some of the devastating natural hazards such as tornadoes. The best solution is to take little measures that will help normalize the climate and reduce the rate at which such events may occur. It is also clear from the study that risk governance needs sincerity among the involved stakeholders. It is easy to come up with effective plans for managing risks if all the parties involved are sincere and committed to finding lasting ways of addressing the problem.
Conclusion
Risks are events that cannot be precisely predicted because they often strike when least expected, and their consequences can sometimes be devastating based on their nature and magnitude. It is, therefore very important to come up with effective measures that can be used to manage risks at organizational, national, and even global levels. In this study, the focus was on how climate change can be managed to minimize the magnitude of its impact on the national and global society. It is clear from the critical analysis above that management of climate change as a natural hazard provides some lessons about risk governance in general. The analysis reveals that managing climate change requires a united approach and commitment by all the stakeholders in finding lasting solutions. The paper emphasizes the need for all the stakeholders to be involved in risk governance to find lasting solutions.
Reference List
Abbott, K & Snidal, D 2013, Taking Responsive Regulation Transnational: Strategies for International Organizations, Regulation & Governance, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 95–113.
Ahrens, J & Rudolph, P 2006, The Importance of Governance in Risk Reduction and Disaster Management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 207-220.
Bartley, T 2003, Certifying Forests and Factories: States, Social Movements and the Rise of Private Regulation in the Apparel and Forest Product Fields, Politics and Society, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 433–464.
Bartley, T 2007, Institutional Emergence in An Era of Globalization: The Rise of Transnational Private Regulation of Labor and Environmental Conditions, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 297–351.
Beck, U 2006, Living in the World Risk Society, Economy and Society, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 329-345.
Bennie, L 1998, Brent Spar: Atlantic Oil and Greenpeace, Parliamentary Affairs, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 397–410.
Berke, P 1998, Reducing Natural Hazard Risks through State Growth Management, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 76-87.
Black, J 2001, Decentring Regulation: Understanding the Role of Regulation and Self-Regulation in a Post-Regulatory World, Current Legal Problems, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 103–146.
Black, J 2008, Constructing and Contesting Legitimacy and Accountability in Polycentric Regulatory Regimes, Regulation & Governance, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 137–164.
Braithwaite, J 2008, Regulatory Capitalism: How it Works, Ideas for Making it Work Better, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Brenkert, G 2010, Corporate Control of Information: Business and the Freedom of Expression, Business and Society Review, vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 121–145.
Büthe, T & Mattli W 2011, The New Global Rulers: The Privatization of Regulation in the World Economy, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Büthe, T 2010, Global Private Politics: A Research Agenda. Business and Politics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 12-41.
Cheng, C 2009, New Media and Event: A Case Study on the Power of the Internet, Knowledge, Technology & Policy, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 145–153.
Chukwumerije, O, Bulkeley, H & Schroeder, H 2009, Conceptualizing Climate Governance beyond the International Regime, Global Environmental Politics, Washington.
Demos, G 2004, See- Through Science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream, Monograph, London.
Gidden, A 2008, The Politics of Climate Change, Constable, London.
Gili, S & Meyer, J 2008, Scientization: Making a World Safe for Organizing, Transnational Governance, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 31-52.
Grabosky, P 2014, Beyond Responsive Regulation: The Expanding Role of Non-State Actors In The Regulatory Process, Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, London.
Gramelsberger, G & Feichter, J 2011, Climate change And Policy: The Calculability of Climate Change and the Challenge of Uncertainty, Heidelberg, Berlin.
Gruyer, W 2002, The Concept of Risk, A Sociological Theory, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 1-31.
Hutter, B & Power, M 2005, Organizational Encounters With Risk, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Irwin, A, Jensen, T & Jones, K 2010, The Good, The Bad And The Perfect: Criticizing Engagement Practice, Social Studies of Science, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 118-135.
Lahsen, M 2005, Seductive Simulations: Uncertainty Distribution around Climate Models, Social Studies of Science, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 895-922.
Leiserowitz, A 2006, Climate Change Risk Perception And Policy Preferences: The Role Of Affect, Imagery, And Values, Climatic Change, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 45–72.
Marchi, B & Ravetz, J 1999, Risk Management and Governance: A Post-Normal Science Approach, Futures, vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 743-757.
Marjolein, A & Ortwin, R 2011, Risk Governance, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 431–449.
Miller, C & Edwards, N 2001, Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Mills, E 2011, Responding To Climate Change: The Insurance Industry Perspective, US Department of Energy, New York.
Okereke, C, Bulkeley, H & Schroeder, H 2008, Conceptualizing Climate Governance beyond the International Regime, Global Environmental Politics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 58-78.
Perrow, C 1999, Normal Accidents Living With High-Risk Technologies, Princeton University Press, Chichester.
Power, M 2004, The Risk Management Of Everything, The Journal of Risk Finance, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 58 – 65.
Renn, O 2008, Risk Governance: Coping With Uncertainty in a Complex World, Sterling, London.
Thompson, M & Rayner, S 2002, Risk and Governance Part I: The Discourses of Climate Change, Government and Opposition, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 139-166.
Tierney, K 2012, Disaster Governance: Social, Political, and Economic Dimensions, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 341-363.
Tierney, K 2011, Managing Natural Disasters, the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 51–63.
Turner, M 2009, The Organizational and Inter-Organizational Development of Disasters, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 378-397.
Van, M & Renn, O 2011, Risk Governance, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 431-449.
Wachinger, G, Renn, O, Begg, C & Kuhlicke, C 2013, The Risk Perception Paradox: Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards, Risk Analysis, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1049-1065.
Walker, G, Whittle, F & Tweed, R 2014, A Framework For Profiling The Characteristics Of Risk Governance In Natural Hazard Contexts, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 155-164.