This is something we see very commonly. For one, it seems to be human nature to be quite strongly rooted in a familiar, or often ancestral area. It’s a matter of convenience and familiarity, but also reflects that many people have their network of relatives and friends in a given place, and giving that up after a disaster or incident such as the mud flow is not done lightly. Also, often those informal networks are needed to rebuild a life – if people move away elsewhere they are faced with starting from scratch, and without that network. However, there are also cultural differences. Take the US for example. It is known that the average American moves home nearly 12 times in their life (not necessarily to another city, but that is often the case), hence they are very mobile. After Hurricane Katrina New Orleans lost nearly a quarter of its population pretty much permanently – people moved away in the aftermath of the event, and stayed away. Elsewhere people just pick up the pieces and rebuilt their lives. Clearly this is also a function of means available - if I have money, or get an insurance payout, I can per perhaps afford to move elsewhere. If I lose everything in a disaster I might not have a choice but to stay put and start again.

We found in our risk perception studies a correlation with age: the older the disaster survivors the more likely that they remained / or returned early in the disaster area. In addition, farmers are more likely to stay, compared to other societal groups, as they feel responsible for their farm and, particularly for their farm animals.

In other studies (Hungary) we found that several people stood in the disaster area as they were afraid of robbery.

People will generally choose acute risk over chronic risk- i.e. Relocation may disrupt community cohesion, livelihoods, education, culture etc. so residents choose rather to be exposed to the potential of (acute) disaster risk. Also, I feel that culture and belief systems play a part in that disaster risk is accepted as a part of life that should not necessarily be 'fixed'.

In peoples' minds, home familiarity, friends and family ties often trump the possibility of another disaster striking the same place. Worse yet is not improving infrastructure secondary to the event, ie not building earthquake-resistent buildings and homes in Haiti post earthquake. Unfortunately a part of "lessons learned" that is not always paid attention to

I think there are characteristics linked to national culture which determine behaviour in these circumstances - we are working on this area at present and I will let you  know when our first set of results are published.

What I found in my study is many times people are not aware of potential threat,this may be because of unawareness ,education,exposure (especially in case of rural women), access to resources(in remote areas). Apart from this other factors such as income,struggle for basic needs,superstition,frequency of disaster,folk attitude (incase of young males),responsibilities etc,,

I think there is a social need, in varying degrees of intensity and frequency, to confront certain catastrophic contexts in order to reflect on how daily routines and priorities cease to make sense. On the other hand, to rediscover the essence of the human being (in terms of the fragility of life, the mechanisms of solidarity and others).

I think that one aspect is the fear of leaving one's property unattended and that then others might steal from empty houses. Even if this fear is less often justified it seems to be a 'natural' consideration people often mention when asked why they hesitate to move far away.

Another aspect relates to the importance of social capital, of social cohesiveness which might get distributed when people move away. This social capital can play major role in the response to hazards and disasters and it is understandable that people hesitate to give up such protective structures.

Both aspects might contradict each other, but not necessarily. In research we made the experience that not all people stay back, but a few looking after their own properties as well as the ones of their neighbors.

People from affected areas are likely to resettle the same area or nearby because they know the nature of climate, soil as well as the whole ecosystem. Moreover, people from my working area are bound to live there because scarcity of resources such as land.