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.
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your Elgar Online account
