A Risk Assessment Framework for Decision Making that Transcends Economic Valuation: Understanding Why People Choose to Stay in Disaster-Risk Prone Areas
Possible risk-mitigating options need to be examined before deciding on the most cost-effective strategy in the short, medium and long term. At the household level, factors including social attachment, connectivity and access to services in cities offer an extended value registry that needs to be incorporated into frameworks for assessing decisions about risk reduction alternatives. Any intervention (such as housing) results in both costs and benefits being incurred by the people. For instance, research reflects the fact that resettling people from high-risk areas eliminates the costs associated with the emergency and reconstruction phase (Correa 2011). However, certain non-monetary costs, such as the loss of livelihood opportunities, physiological and social consequences, and disruption of social cohesion are often overlooked, regardless of whether the intervention is beneficial or not.