Macroeconomic models for predicting indirect impacts of disasters: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interdependencies between critical infrastructures and the economy amplify the effects of damage caused by disasters. The growing interest in impacts beyond physical damage has spurred a surge in literature on economic modeling methodologies for estimating indirect economic impacts of disasters. In this review, we present a framework for categorizing modeling approaches that assess indirect economic impacts across natural hazards and anthropogenic disasters such as cyber attacks. We first conduct a comparative analysis of macroeconomic models, focusing on the approaches capturing sectoral inter-dependencies. These include the Leontief Input-Output (I/O) model, the Inoperability Input-Output Model (IIM), the Dynamic Inoperability Input-Output Model (DIIM), the Adaptive Regional Input-Output (ARIO) model, and the Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model and its extensions. We evaluate their applicability to disaster scenarios based on input data availability, the compatibility of model assumptions, and output capabilities. We also reveal the functional relationships of input data and output metrics across economic modeling approaches for inter-sectoral impacts. Furthermore, we examine how the damage mechanisms posed by different types of disasters translate into model inputs and impact modeling processes. This synthesis provides guidance for researchers and practitioners in selecting and configuring models based on specific disaster scenarios. It also identifies the gaps in the literature, including the need for a deeper understanding of model performance reliability, key drivers of economic outcomes in different disaster contexts, and the disparities in modeling approach applications across various hazard types.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".