political and economic influence, and the unequal distribution of the costs and benefits that flow “naturally” from
decisions made by local, national, and international elites. In the US, Hurricane Katrina vividly illustrated this
point, which had been made earlier by a number of disaster researchers.
Within the context of the current economic crisis, the US economic system has been described as
privatizing gains and socializing losses. Not surprisingly, this is essentially what has been occurring with respect
to hazards and disasters. Elites benefit from laws, policies, and practices that exacerbate the potential for future
disaster losses, while taxpayers underwrite the losses when those disasters occur.
A political economy focus also reveals that under certain circumstances, when their own interests are in
jeopardy, influential institutional actors can become advocates for disaster loss reduction, albeit on a limited basis.
For example, the US insurance industry has sought federal government backing for catastrophic hazard insurance
protection and engaged in efforts to promote the adoption of hazard mitigation measures through organizations
such as the industry-sponsored Institute for Business and Home Safety. To the extent that insurers and re-insurers
seek predictability in their own risks and their exposure to catastrophic payouts, their interests align with those
of disaster loss reduction advocates in other sectors. In many respects, hazards management involves a continual
search for ways of bringing about such alignments.
What do we need to know? What are the major sociological research questions?
Hazards and Climate Change: How Similar, How Different?
The foregoing sections have briefly summarized findings from the literature on societal dimensions of
hazards that may inform our understanding of climate change issues. This effort at comparing hazards and climate
change raises a number of questions, such as the following:
• To what extent is a hazards framework useful for understanding behavior with respect to climate issues?
What are its strengths? Its limitations? Is climate change so different from other hazards that new
theoretical and analytic frameworks are needed?
• What are the best strategies for communicating about climate issues with the public? With decision
makers at different levels of government and within different sectors? Should climate change be included
in “all hazards” risk communication and education efforts, and if so, how? What role does climate
information (as opposed to other types of information) actually play in climate-relevant decisions? How
much science is enough science?
• What are the respective roles of public opinion, experts, and interest groups in the climate change policy
process?
• How can climate change remain on national, state, and local political agendas as other issues assume
more pressing importance? If disaster events help focus the attention of the public and political leaders
on hazard-related issues, can events that result from climate change, variation, and extremes be used in
the same way by policy advocates?
• What are the characteristics of the climate change policy network? How do different elite actors and
sectors align with respect to mitigation and adaptation choices? To what extent are their positions
consistent with broader goals of climate change mitigation, adaptation, and sustainability?
• What actions can federal, state, and regional entities take to encourage information dissemination and
the adoption of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies? To what extent can local, state, and
sectoral initiatives influence federal level decision making?