just because response and resilience are neglected does not prove that if they are highly cost-effective.
However, I would argue assessing neglectedness based on past spending underestimates the expected neglectedness (see my comment here). Resources could go towards response and resilience after the catastrophe, which is not the case for prevention.
So then I think actual cost-effectiveness models are useful, such as this, this, and this.
Hi David,
I agree with you that:
However, I would argue assessing neglectedness based on past spending underestimates the expected neglectedness (see my comment here). Resources could go towards response and resilience after the catastrophe, which is not the case for prevention.