Journal cover Journal topic
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 2.883 IF 2.883
  • IF 5-year value: 3.321 IF 5-year
    3.321
  • CiteScore value: 3.07 CiteScore
    3.07
  • SNIP value: 1.336 SNIP 1.336
  • IPP value: 2.80 IPP 2.80
  • SJR value: 1.024 SJR 1.024
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 81 Scimago H
    index 81
  • h5-index value: 43 h5-index 43
Volume 16, issue 8
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 1911–1924, 2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1911-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 1911–1924, 2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1911-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Research article 16 Aug 2016

Research article | 16 Aug 2016

Regional disaster impact analysis: comparing input–output and computable general equilibrium models

Elco E. Koks1, Lorenzo Carrera2, Olaf Jonkeren3, Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts1, Trond G. Husby3, Mark Thissen3, Gabriele Standardi2, and Jaroslav Mysiak2 Elco E. Koks et al.
  • 1Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • 2Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM), Venice, Italy
  • 3PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, the Netherlands

Abstract. A variety of models have been applied to assess the economic losses of disasters, of which the most common ones are input–output (IO) and computable general equilibrium (CGE) models. In addition, an increasing number of scholars have developed hybrid approaches: one that combines both or either of them in combination with noneconomic methods. While both IO and CGE models are widely used, they are mainly compared on theoretical grounds. Few studies have compared disaster impacts of different model types in a systematic way and for the same geographical area, using similar input data. Such a comparison is valuable from both a scientific and policy perspective as the magnitude and the spatial distribution of the estimated losses are born likely to vary with the chosen modelling approach (IO, CGE, or hybrid). Hence, regional disaster impact loss estimates resulting from a range of models facilitate better decisions and policy making. Therefore, this study analyses the economic consequences for a specific case study, using three regional disaster impact models: two hybrid IO models and a CGE model. The case study concerns two flood scenarios in the Po River basin in Italy. Modelling results indicate that the difference in estimated total (national) economic losses and the regional distribution of those losses may vary by up to a factor of 7 between the three models, depending on the type of recovery path. Total economic impact, comprising all Italian regions, is negative in all models though.

Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
In this study we analyze the economic consequences for two flood scenarios in the Po River basin in Italy, using three regional disaster impact models: two hybrid IO models and a regionally CGE model. Modelling results indicate that the difference in estimated total (national) economic losses and the regional distribution of those losses may vary by up to a factor of 7 between the three models, depending on the type of recovery path. Total economic impact is negative in all models though.
In this study we analyze the economic consequences for two flood scenarios in the Po River basin...
Citation