Advertisement

Incorporating Cyber Resilience into Computable General Equilibrium Models

  • Adam RoseEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

Most countries are becoming increasingly dependent on cyber inputs for business, government, and private pursuits. Disruptions of the cyber system can therefore have extensive economic consequences. Resilience is a major way to reduce consequences such as business interruption after the disaster strikes by promoting business continuity and recovery. One approach to analyzing and measuring its effectiveness is to incorporate resilience into economic consequence analysis models of various types, such as Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models. These models have several attractive properties that make them especially valuable, including being based on behavioral responses of individual producers and consumers, having a role for prices and markets, having the ` to trace economic interdependence, and being based on a non-linear structure that can reflect flexibility of various components. Cyber resilience is a case of economic resilience, pertaining to preventing: (1) supply-side reduction of cyber product and service disruptions to direct and indirect down-stream customers, which also reduces disruptions to the cyber sectors’ own direct and indirect up-stream suppliers; and (2) demand-side reduction by customers of their losses from cyber disruptions, which also reduces further upstream and downstream losses. We summarize established and new methodological advances in explicitly incorporating cyber resilience into CGE models. Several types of resilience are inherent, or already naturally included, in CGE models in relation to their core focus (e.g., substitution of inputs in relation to the input scarcity and the allocative mechanism of price signals). Other types of resilience are adaptive in terms of ad hoc reactions after the disaster strikes (e.g., business relocation and lining up new suppliers from within or outside the affected area). Our framework for incorporating various cyber resilience tactics into CGE models is based on economic production theory in relation to decisions regarding inputs and outputs. We explain the methodological refinements needed and provide real world examples of cyber resilience tactics.

References

  1. Ali J, Santos J (2012) Framework for evaluating economic impact of IT based disasters on the interdependent sectors of the US economy. In: Systems and information design symposium (SIEDS)Google Scholar
  2. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1991) Seismic vulnerability and impacts of disruption of lifelines in the coterminous United States. Report ATC-25. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bisogni F, Cavallini S (2010) Assessing the economic loss and social impact of information system breakdowns. In: Critical infrastructure protection IV, IFIP advances in information and communication technology. Springer, Berlin, pp 185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cagnan C, Davidson K, Guikema S (2006) Post-Earthquake Restoration Planning for Los Angeles Electric Power. Earthquake Spectra: 22(3): 589–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang S, Rose A (2012) Economic recovery to disasters. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 30(2):171–181Google Scholar
  6. Cox A, Prager F, Rose A (2011) Transportation security and the role of resilience: a foundation for operational metrics. Transp Policy 18:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dixon P, Rimmer M, Lee B, Rose A et al (2010) Effects on the U.S. of an H1N1 epidemic: analysis with a quarterly CGE model. J Homel Secur Emerg Manag 7(1):Article 7Google Scholar
  8. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2013) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology (HAZUS®MH MR4). http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3726
  9. Giesecke J, Burns W, Rose A, Barrett T, Griffith M (2015) Regional dynamics under adverse physical and behavioral shocks: the economic consequences of a chlorine terrorist attack in the Los Angeles Finance District. In: Nijkamp P, Rose A, Kourtit K (eds) Regional science matters. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  10. Giesecke JA, Burns WJ, Barrett A, Bayrak E, Rose A, Slovic P, Suher M (2016) Assessment of the regional economic impacts of catastrophic events: CGE analysis of resource loss and behavioral effects of an RDD attack scenario. Risk Anal 32(4):583–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gigerenzer G, Selten R (eds) (2002) Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Holling C (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horwich G (1995) Economic lessons of the Kobe earthquake. Econ Dev Cult Chang 48(3):521–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Linkov I, Eisenberg D, Plourde K, Seager T, Allen J (2013) Resilience metrics for cyber systems. Environ Syst Decis 33(4):471–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martin R, Sunley P (2014) On the notion of regional economic resilience: conceptualization and explanation. J Econ Geogr 15(1):1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nassios J, Giesecke J (2018) Informing ex-ante event studies with macro-econometric evidence on the structural policy of terrorism. Risk Anal 38(4):804–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Norris F, Stevens S, Pfefferbaum V, Whyche K, Pfefferbaum R (2008) Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities and strategy for disaster readiness. Am J Community Psychol 41:127–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pimm SL (1984) The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 307(26):321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rose A (1984) Technological change and input-output analysis. Socio Econ Plan Sci 18(5): 305–318; Reprinted in Haynes K, et al (eds) Modern classics in regional science. Regional dynamics, vol 2. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  20. Rose A (2004) Economic principles, issues, and research priorities in natural hazard loss estimation. In: Okuyama Y, Chang S (eds) Modeling the spatial economic impacts of natural hazards. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 13–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rose A (2009) Economic resilience to disasters. CARRI Research Report #8. ORNLGoogle Scholar
  22. Rose A (2015) Macroeconomic consequences of terrorist attacks: estimation for the analysis of policies and rules. In: Smith VK, Mansfield C (eds) Benefit transfer for the analysis of DHS policies and rules. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 172–201Google Scholar
  23. Rose A (2017) Defining and measuring economic resilience from a societal. Environmental and security perspective, Springer, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  24. Rose A, Liao S (2005) Modeling resilience to disasters: computable general equilibrium analysis of a water service disruption. J Reg Sci 45(1):75–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rose A, Lim D (2002) Business interruption losses from natural hazards: conceptual and methodology issues in the case of the Northridge earthquake. Environ Hazard 4(1):1–14Google Scholar
  26. Rose A, Miller N (2019) Measurement of cyber resilience from an economic perspective. In: Chatterjee S, Brigantic R, Waterworth A (eds) Applied risk analysis for guiding homeland security policy and decision. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  27. Rose A, Oladosu G (2008) Regional economic impacts of natural and man-made hazards disrupting utility lifeline services to households. In: Richardson H, Gordon P, Moore J (eds) Economic impacts of Hurricane Katrina. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  28. Rose A, Wei D (2013) Estimating the economic consequences of a port shutdown: the special role of resilience. Econ Syst Res 25(2):212–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rose A, Oladosu G, Liao S (2007) Business interruption impacts of a terrorist attack on the electric power system of Los Angeles: customer resilience to a total blackout. Risk Anal 27(3):513–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rose A, Oladosu G, Lee B, Beeler-Asay G (2009) The economic impacts of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center: a computable general equilibrium analysis. Peace Econ Peace Sci Public Policy 15(2):Article 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rose A, Liao S, Bonneau A (2011) Regional economic impacts of a Verdugo earthquake disruption of Los Angeles water supplies: a computable general equilibrium analysis. Earthquake Spectra 27(3):881–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rose A, Wing IS, Wei D, Wein A (2016) Economic impacts of a California tsunami. Nat Hazard Rev 17(2):04016002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rose A, Prager F, Chen Z, Chatterjee S (2017) Economic consequence analysis of disasters (The E-CAT Software Tool). Springer, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sheffi Y (2005) The resilient enterprise. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  35. Silberberg E, Suen W (2000) The structure of economics: a mathematical analysis. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Sue Wing I, Rose A, Wei D, Wein A (2016) Impacts of the USGS ARkStorm scenario on the California economy. Natural Hazards Review 17(4):A4015002-1Google Scholar
  37. Tierney K (1997) Impacts of recent disasters on businesses: the 1993 Midwest floods and the 1994 Northridge earthquake. In: Jones B (ed) Economic consequences of earthquakes: preparing for the unexpected. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, pp 189–222Google Scholar
  38. Wei D (2015) Summary of literature on economic impacts of telecommunication or internet disruptions. Draft Report to USGSGoogle Scholar
  39. Wei D, Chen Z, Rose A (2019) Evaluating the role of resilience in recovering from major port disruptions: a multi-regional analysis. Submitted to Papers in Regional ScienceGoogle Scholar
  40. Wein A, Rose A (2011) Economic resilience: lessons from the ShakeOut earthquake scenario. Earthquake Spectra: Special Issue on the ShakeOut Earthquake Scenario 27(2):559–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xie W, Rose A, Li S, He J, Li N, Ali T, Wei W (2018) Dynamic economic resilience and economic recovery from disasters: a quantitative assessment. Risk Anal 38(6):1306–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zolli A, Healy AM (2012) Resilience: why things bounce back. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sol Price School of Public PolicyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations