Advertisement

Multiregional Disaster Impact Models: Recent Advances and Comparison of Outcomes

  • Elco KoksEmail author
  • Raghav Pant
  • Trond Husby
  • Johannes Többen
  • Jan Oosterhaven
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of several multiregional modelling approaches used for disaster impact analysis. The chapter specifically focuses on the multiregional supply-use model, the dynamic multiregional inoperability input-output model, the multiregional impact assessment model and the non-linear programming model. Whereas the first two approaches have been applied widely over the last years, the latter two are recently developed methods which aim to improve the estimation of a disruption in the economic system by, amongst others, allowing for a supply shock and spatial substitution effects. Our outcomes show significantly distinct results for the demand-driven multiregional supply-use model and the dynamic multiregional inoperability input-output model on the one hand, and for the non-linear programming model and the multiregional impact assessment model, on the other hand. Whereas for the former only negative impacts in all German regions and foreign countries are observed, the latter also shows positive impacts in several only indirectly impacted regions in addition to different negative impacts.

References

  1. Anderson CW, Santos JR, Haimes YY (2007) A risk-based input–output methodology for measuring the effects of the august 2003 northeast blackout. Econ Syst Res 19(2):183–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrijcic E, Horowitz B (2006) A macro-economic framework for evaluation of cyber security risks related to protection of intellectual property. Risk Anal 26(4):907–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arto I, Andreoni V, Rueda Cantuche JM (2015) Global impacts of the automotive supply chain disruption following the japanese earthquake of 2011. Econ Syst Res 27(3):306–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker K, Santos JR (2010) Measuring the efficacy of inventory with a dynamic input–output model. Int J Prod Econ 126(1):130–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bierkandt R, Wenz L, Willner SN, Levermann A (2014) Acclimate—a model for economic damage propagation. part 1: basic formulation of damage transfer within a global supply network and damage conserving dynamics. Environ Syst Decis 34(4):507–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cavallo E, Galiani S, Noy I, Pantano J (2013) Catastrophic natural disasters and economic growth. Rev Econ Stat 95(5):1549–1561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chenery HB, Clark PG, Pinna VC (1953) The structure and growth of the Italian economy. U. S. Mutual Security Agency, Special Mission to Italy for Economic Cooperation, RomeGoogle Scholar
  8. Christ CF (1955) A review of input-output analysis. In: Input-output analysis: an appraisal. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 137–182Google Scholar
  9. Crowther KG, Haimes YY (2010) Development of the multiregional inoperability input-output model (MRIIM) for spatial explicitness in preparedness of interdependent regions. Syst Eng 13(1):28–46Google Scholar
  10. Dell M, Jones BF, Olken BA (2014) What do we learn from the weather? The new climate–economy literature. J Econ Lit 52(3):740–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietzenbacher E, Miller RE (2015) Reflections on the inoperability input–output model. Econ Syst Res 27(4):478–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eurostat (2008) Eurostat manual of supply, use and input-output tables. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  13. Ghosh A (1958) Input-output approach in an allocation system. Economica 25(4):58–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haimes YY, Jiang P (2001) Leontief-based model of risk in complex interconnected infrastructures. J Infrastruct Syst 7(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haimes YY, Horowitz BM, Lambert JH, Santos JR, Lian C, Crowther KG (2005) Inoperability input-output model for interdependent infrastructure sectors. I: Theory and methodology. J Infrastruct Syst 11(2):67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hallegatte S (2008) An adaptive regional input-output model and its application to the assessment of the economic cost of Katrina. Risk Anal 28(3):779–799.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01046.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. In den Baumen HS, Többen J, Lenzen M (2015) Labour forced impacts and production losses due to the 2013 flood in germany. J Hydrol 527(0):142–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.04.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Isard W (1951) Interregional and regional input-output analysis: a model of a space-economy. Rev Econ Stat 33(4):318–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jonkeren O, Giannopoulos G (2014) Analysing critical infrastructure failure with a resilience inoperability input–output model. Econ Syst Res 26(1):39–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klomp J, Valckx K (2014) Natural disasters and economic growth: a meta-analysis. Glob Environ Chang 26:183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koks EE, Thissen M (2016) A multiregional impact assessment model for disaster analysis. Econ Syst Res 28(4):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koks EE, Carrera L, Jonkeren O, Aerts JCJH, Husby TG, Thissen M et al (2016) Regional disaster impact analysis: comparing input–output and computable general equilibrium models. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 16(8):1911–1924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kullback S (1959) Information and statistics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Lazzaroni S, van Bergeijk PA (2014) Natural disasters’ impact, factors of resilience and development: a meta-analysis of the macroeconomic literature. Ecol Econ 107:333–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lenzen M, Rueda-Cantuche JM (2012) A note on the use of supply-use tables in impact analyses. SORT 36(2):139–152Google Scholar
  26. Leontief W, Strout A (1963) Multiregional input-output analysis. In: Structural interdependence and economic development. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 119–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lian C, Haimes YY (2006) Managing the risk of terrorism to interdependent infrastructure systems through the dynamic inoperability input–output model. Syst Eng 9(3):241–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacKenzie CA, Barker K, Grant FH (2012a) Evaluating the consequences of an inland waterway port closure with a dynamic multiregional interdependence model. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Humans 42(2):359–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MacKenzie CA, Santos JR, Barker K (2012b) Measuring changes in international production from a disruption: case study of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. Int J Prod Econ 138(2):293–302.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.03.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller RE (1969) Interregional feedbacks in input-output models: some experimental results. Econ Inq 7(1):41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller RE, Blair PD (2009) Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moran D, Wood R (2014) Convergence between the eora, wiod, exiobase, and openeu’s consumption-based carbon accounts. Econ Syst Res 26(3):245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moses LN (1955) The stability of interregional trading patterns and input-output analysis. Am Econ Rev 45(5):803–826Google Scholar
  34. Okuyama Y (2004) Modeling spatial economic impacts of an earthquake: input-output approaches. Disaster Prev Manag 13(4):297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Okuyama Y (2015) How shaky was the regional economy after the 1995 kobe earthquake? A multiplicative decomposition analysis of disaster impact. Ann Reg Sci 55(2–3):289–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Okuyama Y, Santos JR (2014) Disaster impact and input-output analysis. Econ Syst Res 26(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oosterhaven J (1981) Interregional input-output analysis and Dutch regional policy problems. Gower, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  38. Oosterhaven J (1984) A family of square and rectangular interregional input-output tables and models. Reg Sci Urban Econ 14(4):565–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oosterhaven J (1988) On the plausibility of the supply-driven input-output model. J Reg Sci 28(2):203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oosterhaven J (1996) Leontief versus Ghoshian price and quantity models. South Econ J 62(3):750–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oosterhaven J (2012) Adding supply-driven consumption makes the Ghosh model even more implausible. Econ Syst Res 24(1):101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oosterhaven J (2017) On the limited usability of the inoperability IO model. Econ Syst Res 29(3):452–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oosterhaven J, Bouwmeester MC (2016) A new approach to modeling the impact of disruptive events. J Reg Sci 56(4):583–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oosterhaven J, Hewings GJ (2014) Interregional input–output models. In: Handbook of regional science. Springer, Berlin, pp 875–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oosterhaven J, Többen J (2017) Wider economic impacts of heavy flooding in Germany: a non-linear programming approach. Spat Econ Anal 12(4):404–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pant R, Barker K, Grant FH, Landers TL (2011) Interdependent impacts of inoperability at multi-modal transportation container terminals. Transport Res E-Log 47(5):722–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pant R, Barker K, Zobel CW (2014) Static and dynamic metrics of economic resilience for interdependent infrastructure and industry sectors. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 125:92–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pant R, Barker K, Landers TL (2015) Dynamic impacts of commodity flow disruptions in inland waterway networks. Comput Ind Eng 89:137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Polenske KR (1970) An empirical test of interregional input-output models: estimation of 1963 Japanese production. Am Econ Rev 60:76–82Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Rose A, Liao S-Y, Bonneau A (2011) Regional economic impacts of a Verdugo scenario earthquake disruption of Los Angeles water supplies: a computable general equilibrium analysis. Earthquake Spectra 27(3):881–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Santos JR (2006) Inoperability input-output modeling of disruptions to interdependent economic systems. Syst Eng 9(1):20–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Santos JR, Haimes YY (2004) Modeling the demand reduction input-output (I-O) inoperability due to terrorism of interconnected infrastructures. Risk Anal 24(6):1437–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Santos JR, May L, Haimar AE (2013) Risk-based input-output analysis of influenza epidemic consequences on interdependent workforce sectors. Risk Anal 33(9):1620–1635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stevens BH, Trainer GA (1980) Error generation in regional input-output analysis and its implications for nonsurvey models. In: Economic impact analysis: methodology and applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 68–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Theil H (1967) Economics and information theory. North-Holland/Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  57. Többen J (2017) Effects of energy and climate policy in Germany: a multiregional analysis. PhD thesis, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
  58. Wenz L, Willner SN, Bierkandt R, Levermann A (2014) Acclimate—a model for economic damage propagation. part ii: a dynamic formulation of the backward effects of disaster-induced production failures in the global supply network. Environ Syst Decis 34(4):525–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elco Koks
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Raghav Pant
    • 1
  • Trond Husby
    • 3
  • Johannes Többen
    • 4
  • Jan Oosterhaven
    • 5
  1. 1.Environmental Change InstituteUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Institute for Environmental StudiesVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyThe HagueThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  5. 5.Faculty of Economics and Business, University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations