Does Increased Safety Have to Reduce Efficiency?
Edited by Carol Mansfield and V. K. Smith
Chapter 6: A comparison of key benefit estimation issues for natural hazards and terrorism: ex ante/ex post valuation and endogenous risk
Many decision analytic tools can be used to inform public investments in terrorism response. Among them are multi-objective approaches, cost-effectiveness and benefit–cost analysis. At the core of all of them is the concept of someone’s preferences, whether citizen, terrorist or decision-maker, from which behavior and values are derived. This chapter focuses on usable similarities or contrasts in behavioral choices between natural hazard and terrorism settings. Although neither term is defined precisely here, events such as floods, fires, earthquakes, wind, drought, pests and epidemics may most often be considered natural hazards, while acts of violence for political purposes aimed typically against civilians is a common definition of terrorism. Terrorism has the element of human intention that many analysts believe distinguishes terrorism from natural hazards. Other acts of violence against civilians such as crimes may differ from terrorism in their purpose and attributes, but can be seen as related behaviors.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.