IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v39y2019i1p85-104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters Generated by Different Input–Output Models: An Application to the 2007 Chehalis River Flood (WA)

Author

Listed:
  • Andre F. T. Avelino
  • Sandy Dall'erba

Abstract

Due to the concentration of assets in disaster‐prone zones, changes in risk landscape and in the intensity of natural events, property losses have increased considerably in recent decades. While measuring these stock damages is common practice in the literature, the assessment of economic ripple effects due to business interruption is still limited and available estimates tend to vary significantly across models. This article focuses on the most popular single‐region input–output models for disaster impact evaluation. It starts with the traditional Leontief model and then compares its assumptions and results with more complex methodologies (rebalancing algorithms, the sequential interindustry model, the dynamic inoperability input–output model, and its inventory counterpart). While the estimated losses vary across models, all the figures are based on the same event, the 2007 Chehalis River flood that impacted three rural counties in Washington State. Given that the large majority of floods take place in rural areas, this article gives the practitioner a thorough review of how future events can be assessed and guidance on model selection.

Suggested Citation

  • Andre F. T. Avelino & Sandy Dall'erba, 2019. "Comparing the Economic Impact of Natural Disasters Generated by Different Input–Output Models: An Application to the 2007 Chehalis River Flood (WA)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(1), pages 85-104, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:1:p:85-104
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13006
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Randall W. Jackson & Moss Madden, 1999. "research notes: Closing the case on closure in Cole's model," Papers in Regional Science, Springer;Regional Science Association International, vol. 78(4), pages 423-427.
    2. Sam Cole, 1988. "The Delayed Impacts Of Plant Closures In A Reformulated Leontief Model," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 135-149, January.
    3. Joost R. Santos & Yacov Y. Haimes, 2004. "Modeling the Demand Reduction Input‐Output (I‐O) Inoperability Due to Terrorism of Interconnected Infrastructures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1437-1451, December.
    4. E. E. Koks & M. Bočkarjova & H. de Moel & J. C. J. H. Aerts, 2015. "Integrated Direct and Indirect Flood Risk Modeling: Development and Sensitivity Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 882-900, May.
    5. Trevor J. Mules, 1983. "Some Simulations With A Sequential Input‐Output Model," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 197-204, January.
    6. James Banks & Janey Camp & Mark Abkowitz, 2014. "Adaptation planning for floods: a review of available tools," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 70(2), pages 1327-1337, January.
    7. Jan Oosterhaven & Maaike C. Bouwmeester, 2016. "A New Approach To Modeling The Impact Of Disruptive Events," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(4), pages 583-595, September.
    8. Jan Oosterhaven, 2017. "On the limited usability of the inoperability IO model," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 452-461, July.
    9. Stéphane Hallegatte, 2014. "Modeling the Role of Inventories and Heterogeneity in the Assessment of the Economic Costs of Natural Disasters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 152-167, January.
    10. Randall W. Jackson & Moss Madden & Harry A. Bowman, 1997. "Closure In Cole'S Reformulated Leontief Model," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(1), pages 21-28, January.
    11. Adam Rose, 2004. "Economic Principles, Issues, and Research Priorities in Hazard Loss Estimation," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Yasuhide Okuyama & Stephanie E. Chang (ed.), Modeling Spatial and Economic Impacts of Disasters, chapter 2, pages 13-36, Springer.
    12. Michael R. Greenberg & Michael Lahr & Nancy Mantell, 2007. "Understanding the Economic Costs and Benefits of Catastrophes and Their Aftermath: A Review and Suggestions for the U.S. Federal Government," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 83-96, February.
    13. Barker, Kash & Santos, Joost R., 2010. "Measuring the efficacy of inventory with a dynamic input-output model," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 130-143, July.
    14. Jan Oosterhaven, 2000. "Lessons from the debate on Cole's model closure," Papers in Regional Science, Springer;Regional Science Association International, vol. 79(2), pages 233-242.
    15. Yasuhide Okuyama, 2007. "Economic Modeling for Disaster Impact Analysis: Past, Present, and Future," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 115-124.
    16. Hiba Baroud & Kash Barker & Jose E. Ramirez‐Marquez & Claudio M. Rocco, 2015. "Inherent Costs and Interdependent Impacts of Infrastructure Network Resilience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 642-662, April.
    17. Andre Fernandes Tomon Avelino, 2017. "Disaggregating input–output tables in time: the temporal input–output framework," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 313-334, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pichler, Anton & Pangallo, Marco & del Rio-Chanona, R. Maria & Lafond, François & Farmer, J. Doyne, 2022. "Forecasting the propagation of pandemic shocks with a dynamic input-output model," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    2. Jie Zhang & Meng Lu & Lulu Zhang & Yadong Xue, 2021. "Assessing indirect economic losses of landslides along highways," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 106(3), pages 2775-2796, April.
    3. Pradeep V. Mandapaka & Edmond Y. M. Lo, 2023. "Assessing Shock Propagation and Cascading Uncertainties Using the Input–Output Framework: Analysis of an Oil Refinery Accident in Singapore," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-24, January.
    4. Adelar Fochezatto & Eduardo Rodrigues Sanguinet & Patricia Batistela & Rodrigo Valdes, 2023. "Income Leakage Regional Effects: Supply and Demand Shocks during the Pandemic in Brazil and Chile," Geographies, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-19, October.
    5. Jian Jin & Haoran Zhou, 2023. "A Demand-Side Inoperability Input–Output Model for Strategic Risk Management: Insight from the COVID-19 Outbreak in Shanghai, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-22, February.
    6. Anton Pichler & J. Doyne Farmer, 2022. "Simultaneous supply and demand constraints in input–output networks: the case of Covid-19 in Germany, Italy, and Spain," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(3), pages 273-293, July.
    7. Xue Jin & U. Rashid Sumaila & Kedong Yin, 2020. "Direct and Indirect Loss Evaluation of Storm Surge Disaster Based on Static and Dynamic Input-Output Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-25, September.
    8. Rui Huang & Arunima Malik & Manfred Lenzen & Yutong Jin & Yafei Wang & Futu Faturay & Zhiyi Zhu, 2022. "Supply-chain impacts of Sichuan earthquake: a case study using disaster input–output analysis," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 110(3), pages 2227-2248, February.
    9. Nikolaos Argyris & Valentina Ferretti & Simon French & Seth Guikema & Gilberto Montibeller, 2019. "Advances in Spatial Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(1), pages 1-8, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matteo Coronese & Davide Luzzati, 2022. "Economic impacts of natural hazards and complexity science: a critical review," LEM Papers Series 2022/13, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    2. David Mendoza‐Tinoco & Yixin Hu & Zhao Zeng & Konstantinos J. Chalvatzis & Ning Zhang & Albert E. Steenge & Dabo Guan, 2020. "Flood Footprint Assessment: A Multiregional Case of 2009 Central European Floods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(8), pages 1612-1631, August.
    3. Yasuhide Okuyama & Michael Sonis & Geoffrey Hewings, 2006. "Typology of structural change in a regional economy: a temporal inverse analysis," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 133-153.
    4. Pradeep V. Mandapaka & Edmond Y. M. Lo, 2023. "Assessing Shock Propagation and Cascading Uncertainties Using the Input–Output Framework: Analysis of an Oil Refinery Accident in Singapore," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-24, January.
    5. Selerio, Egberto & Maglasang, Renan, 2021. "Minimizing production loss consequent to disasters using a subsidy optimization model: a pandemic case," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 112-124.
    6. E. E. Koks & M. Bočkarjova & H. de Moel & J. C. J. H. Aerts, 2015. "Integrated Direct and Indirect Flood Risk Modeling: Development and Sensitivity Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 882-900, May.
    7. Jan Oosterhaven & Johannes Többen, 2017. "Wider economic impacts of heavy flooding in Germany: a non-linear programming approach," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 404-428, October.
    8. Weijiang Li & Jiahong Wen & Bo Xu & Xiande Li & Shiqiang Du, 2018. "Integrated Assessment of Economic Losses in Manufacturing Industry in Shanghai Metropolitan Area Under an Extreme Storm Flood Scenario," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-19, December.
    9. Irfan Ahmed & Claudio Socci & Rosita Pretaroli & Francesca Severini & Stefano Deriu, 2022. "Socioeconomic spillovers of the 2016–2017 Italian earthquakes: a bi-regional inoperability model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 426-453, January.
    10. Otto, Christian & Willner, Sven Norman & Wenz, Leonie & Frieler, Katja & Levermann, Anders, 2017. "Modeling loss-propagation in the global supply network: The dynamic agent-based model acclimate," OSF Preprints 7yyhd, Center for Open Science.
    11. Baghersad, Milad & Zobel, Christopher W., 2015. "Economic impact of production bottlenecks caused by disasters impacting interdependent industry sectors," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 71-80.
    12. Rui Huang & Arunima Malik & Manfred Lenzen & Yutong Jin & Yafei Wang & Futu Faturay & Zhiyi Zhu, 2022. "Supply-chain impacts of Sichuan earthquake: a case study using disaster input–output analysis," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 110(3), pages 2227-2248, February.
    13. Jan Oosterhaven, 2017. "On the limited usability of the inoperability IO model," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 452-461, July.
    14. Severin Reissl & Alessandro Caiani & Francesco Lamperti & Tommaso Ferraresi & Leonardo Ghezzi, 2024. "A regional input-output model of the COVID-19 crisis in Italy: decomposing demand and supply factors," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 100-130, January.
    15. Monge, Juan J. & McDonald, Garry W., 2020. "The Economy-Wide Value-at-Risk from the Exposure of Natural Capital to Climate Change and Extreme Natural Events: The Case of Wind Damage and Forest Recreational Services in New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    16. Yanfang Lyu & Yun Xiang & Dong Wang, 2023. "Evaluating Indirect Economic Losses from Flooding Using Input–Output Analysis: An Application to China’s Jiangxi Province," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-17, March.
    17. Muhammad Abdullah Khalid & Yousaf Ali, 2020. "Economic impact assessment of natural disaster with multi-criteria decision making for interdependent infrastructures," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(8), pages 7287-7311, December.
    18. Oosterhaven, Jan, 2015. "On the doubtful usability of the inoperability IO model," Research Report 15008-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    19. Otto, C. & Willner, S.N. & Wenz, L. & Frieler, K. & Levermann, A., 2017. "Modeling loss-propagation in the global supply network: The dynamic agent-based model acclimate," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 232-269.
    20. Zhengtao Zhang & Ning Li & Peng Cui & Hong Xu & Yuan Liu & Xi Chen & Jieling Feng, 2019. "How to Integrate Labor Disruption into an Economic Impact Evaluation Model for Postdisaster Recovery Periods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2443-2456, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:1:p:85-104. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.