Chapter 6: A comparison of key benefit estimation issues for natural hazards and terrorism: ex ante/ex post valuation and endogenous risk
Restricted access

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.

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Other access options

Redeem Token

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institutional Access

Personal login

Log in with your Elgar Online account

Login with you Elgar account
Monograph Book