As part of the ‘Reducing relocation risk in Urban Areas’ project which examines the various social and economic implications of climate-risk related resettlement and relocation policies in cities across three geographies (India, Uganda, and Peru, Colombia and Mexico in Latin America), IIHS team developed an alternative economic framework for conducting a ‘cost and benefit’ analysis. Our approach towards assessing costs and benefits is situated in the larger framework of structural risks, which goes beyond the site* to a larger regional perspective of the city, reflecting the long-term historical trends of such risks as well as providing a context for future risks created by the processes of urbanisation and increasing climate variability. Assuming that people follow an ‘asset accumulation’ approach to adapt to risks, their existing risks and opportunities are understood—particularly in their current spatial contexts—from the perspective of social, environmental, economic and physical assets as well as overall quality of life. The costs, then, either take the form of impacts that reduce their asset accumulation (created risks) or things that were lacking, to begin with, and an opportunity was lost by not addressing them after the intervention (continuing risks). The benefits, on the other hand, include new assets (reduced risks) or risks not created (avoided risks). These are understood qualitatively based on responses from households regarding their experiences of resettlement interventions. Attention has been paid to the most vulnerable communities (the disabled, the old, women, particularly from the lower castes, vulnerably employed, etc.) to understand their needs, which often get lost in aggregated studies. The report analyses six of the 19 sites under study (three in rural Odisha and three in urban Andhra Pradesh) using a cost-benefit framework and makes recommendations based on the key characteristics of the settlements (original site, project level decisions and designs, etc.)