Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Key factors affecting sustained business operations after an earthquake: a case study from New Beichuan, China, 2013–2017

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most disaster research has focused on business recovery at a point in time or over a short period of time, with the goal of summarizing the experience to reduce business vulnerability in future disasters. However, studies on long-term business recovery processes may be more useful for providing lessons that support sustained business operations after a disaster. This study considers the changes in business’ operating statuses following the initial survival of a large earthquake and examines how different factors influence sustained business operations during the long-term recovery after a disaster. The study uses logistic regression techniques along with field investigations and questionnaire data collected from 256 New Beichuan businesses that remained open following the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. The study results showed that some of the original surviving businesses closed during the subsequent post-disaster operation process. As such, identifying businesses reopening after the disaster cannot be equated with long-term recovery. Factors significantly influencing the sustained operation of a business after the Wenchuan earthquake included: pre-disaster financial conditions, post-disaster monthly average profit, borrowing of money from family or friends, the business owner’s gender, and government subsidies. Study findings have important theoretical implications for research on the long-term recovery of businesses after an earthquake. Findings also have practical value for business owners selecting post-disaster sustainable operation strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams B, Mcmillan A, Platt S (2008) Indicators for measuring, monitoring and evaluating post-disaster recovery. In: 6th International workshop on remote sensing for disaster applications

  • Alesch DJ (2003) Complex urban systems and extreme events: toward a theory of disaster recovery. Public Entity Risk Institute, Fairfax

    Google Scholar 

  • Alesch DJ, Holly JN, Mittler E, Nagy R (2001) Organizations at risk: what happens when small businesses and not-for-profits encounter natural disasters. Public Entity Risk Institute, Fairfax

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt LA, Alesch DJ (2009) Managing for long-term recovery in the aftermath of disaster. Seismol Res Lett 80:263–264. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.80.2.263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asgary A, Anjum MI, Azimi N (2012) Disaster recovery and business continuity after the 2010 flood in Pakistan: case of small businesses. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2:46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson CL (2014) Hurricane Wilma and long-term business recovery in disasters: the role of local government procurement and economic development. J Homel Secur Emerg Manag 11(1):169–192. https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2013-0002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlhamer JM, Tierney KJ (1998) Rebounding from disruptive events: business recovery following the Northridge earthquake. Sociol Spectr 18(2):121–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietch EA, Corey CM (2011) Predicting long-term business recovery four years after Hurricane Katrina. Manag Res Rev 34(3):311–324. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171111116321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fothergill A (1996a) Gender, risk, and disaster. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 14(1):33–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Fothergill A (1996b) The neglect of gender in disaster work: an overview of the literature. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 14(1)

  • Haas JE, Kates RW, Bowden MJ (1977) Reconstruction following disaster. Reconstrução

  • Kaushalya H, Karunasena G, Amarathunga D (2014) Role of insurance in post disaster recovery planning in business community. Proc Econ Finance 18:626–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00984-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan MAU, Sayem MA (2013) Understanding recovery of small enterprises from natural disaster. Environ Hazards 12(3–4):218–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2012.761593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleindorfer PR, Singhal K, Wassenhove LNV (2010) Sustainable operations management. J Bus Strategy 1(1):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll CA, Landis JD, Shen Q, Stryker S (1991) The economic impacts of the Loma Prieta Earthquake: a focus on small business. Philosophy 5 (1)

  • Kroll-Smith JS (1988) Human system responses to disaster: an inventory of sociological findings by Thomas E. Drabek, vol 17(4), Springer, p 513

  • Kunreuther H (1996) Mitigating disaster losses through insurance. J Risk Uncertain 12(2–3):171–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam NS, Arenas H, Pace K, Lesage J, Campanella R (2012) Predictors of business return in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. PLoS ONE 7(10):e47935. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin L, Wang Y, Liu T (2017) Perception of recovery of households affected by 2008 Wenchuan earthquake: a structural equation model. PLoS ONE 81(2):107–122. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell MK, Prater CS (2003) Assessing community impacts of natural disasters. Nat Hazards Rev 4(4):176–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y (2013) Sustainable competitive advantage in turbulent business environments. Int J Prod Res 51(10):2821–2841. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.720392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo RC (2009) May 12, 2008 Wenchuan earthquake—geoscience aspect, earthquake impact, response, and recovery. Paper read at technical council on lifeline earthquake engineering conference

  • Lo SF (2010) Performance evaluation for sustainable business: a profitability and marketability framework. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 17(6):311–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loscocco KA, Robinson J (1991) Barriers to women’s small-business success in the United States. Gender Soc 5(4):511–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall MI, Schrank HL (2014) Small business disaster recovery: a research framework. Nat Hazards 72(2):597–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-1025-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall MI, Niehm LS, Sydnor SB, Schrank HL (2015) Predicting small business demise after a natural disaster: an analysis of pre-existing conditions. Nat Hazards 79(1):331–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1845-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrow BH, Enarson E (1996) Hurricane Andrew through women’s eyes: issues and recommendations. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 14(1):5–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Orhan E (2014) The role of lifeline losses in business continuity in the case of Adapazari, Turkey. Environ Hazards 13(4):298–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2014.922914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orhan E (2016) Lessons learned from businesses to ensure community level recovery in a postdisaster period: case from Adapazari, Turkey. Nat Hazards Rev 17(1):05015002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poontirakul P, Brown C, Vargo I, Vargo J (2016) The role of commercial insurance in post-disaster recovery: quantitative evidence from the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Victoria University of Wellington woking paper

  • Quarantelli, E. L. 1999. The disaster recovery process: what we know and do not know from research. Preliminary paper #286. University of Delaware, Disaster Research Center, Newark, DE

  • Rodríguez H, Quarantelli EL, Dynes RR (2006) Handbook of disaster research. University of Delaware: Springer, Newark

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharon MD, Lee J, Amarapurkar S, Stafford K, Haynes G, Brewton KE (2009) Determinants of family business resilience after a natural disaster by gender of business owner. J Dev Entrep 14(04):333–354. https://doi.org/10.1142/s1084946709001351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan M (2003) Communities and their experience of emergencies. Aust J Emerg Manag 18(1):19

    Google Scholar 

  • Sydnor S, Niehm L, Lee Y, Marshall M, Schrank H (2017) Analysis of post-disaster damage and disruptive impacts on the operating status of small businesses after Hurricane Katrina. Nat Hazards 85(3):1637–1663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2652-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney KJ (1997) Business impacts of the Northridge earthquake. J Contingencies Crisis Manag 5(2):87–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney KJ, Dahlhamer JM (1997) Business disruption, preparedness and recovery: lessons from the Northridge Earthquake. Preliminary paper #257. University of Delaware, Disaster Research Center, Newark, DE

  • Tierney KJ, Webb GR (2001) Business vulnerability to earthquakes and other disasters. Preliminary paper #320. University of Delaware, Disaster Research Center, Newark, DE

  • Venselaar J (2015) Sustainable business operation from ambition to profit the strategical value of sustainability. Avans University of Applied Sciences, pp 8–9

  • Wasileski G, Rodríguez H, Diaz W (2011) Business closure and relocation: a comparative analysis of the Loma Prieta earthquake and Hurricane Andrew. Disasters 35(1):102–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.03613666.2010.01195.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb GR, Tierney KJ, Dahlhamer JM (2000) Businesses and disasters: empirical patterns and unanswered questions. Nat Hazards Rev 1(2):83–90. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2000)1:2(83)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb GR, Tierney KJ, Dahlhamer JM (2002) Predicting long-term business recovery from disaster: a comparison of the Loma Prieta earthquake and Hurricane Andrew. Environ Hazards 4(2):45–58. https://doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2002.0405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao Y, Peacock WG (2014) Do hazard mitigation and preparedness reduce physical damage to businesses in disasters: the critical role of business disaster planning. Nat Hazards Rev. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao Y, Van Zandt S (2012) Building community resiliency: spatial links between household and business post-disaster return. Urban Studies 49(11):2523–2542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011428178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshida K, Deyle RE (2005) Determinants of small business hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards Rev 6(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2005)6:1(1)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Lindell MK, Prater CS (2009) Vulnerability of community businesses to environmental disasters. Disasters 33(1):38–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01061.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Q, Lu Q, Hu Y, Lau J (2015) What constrained disaster management capacity in the township level of China? Case studies of Wenchuan and Lushan earthquakes. Nat Hazards 77(3):1915–1938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1683-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is deeply indebted to the following research funding sources: (1) National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 11XZZ001); (2) Chongqing University Postgraduates’ Innovation Project (Grant No. CYB15005).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wang Lin.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, F., Wang, L., Jin, Z. et al. Key factors affecting sustained business operations after an earthquake: a case study from New Beichuan, China, 2013–2017. Nat Hazards 104 (Suppl 1), 101–121 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03597-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03597-1

Keywords

Navigation