Safety Science 144 (2021) 105443

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/safety

Analysis of the impact of dynamic economic resilience on post-disaster

recovery “secondary shock” and sustainable improvement of
system performance
Zhengtao Zhang a, b, Peng Cui c, d, *, Jiansheng Hao c, Ning Li e, Zhaoqi Zeng c, Yuan Liu g,
Qiang Zou f, Chengfang Huang a, Shengnan Wu h
a
The Key Laboratory of Environmental Change and Natural Disaster, MOE, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
b
Academy of Disaster Reduction and Emergency Management Ministry of Emergency Management & Ministry of Education, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing
Normal University, Beijing, China
c
Key Laboratory of Land Surface Pattern and Simulation, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
d
Centre for Excellence in Tibetan Plateau Earth Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
e
Academy of Plateau Science and Sustainability, Xining, Qignhai, China
f
Key Laboratory of Mountain Hazards and Surface Process, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
g
National Climate Center, China Meteorological Administration
h
Center of Emergency Management, Chongqing Institute of Public Administration

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Quantitative measuring disaster resilience especially dynamic economic resilience (DER) belongs to a frontier
Resilience research in the past decades, which can effectively improve post-disaster economic recovery effects, reducing
Indirect economic loss post-disaster loss. However, DER focuses more on the overall shape changes of recovery path, two features that
Climate change
commonly appear in the dynamic change process of recovery curve are also worth evaluating separately: the
Economic development
Sustainable development
“secondary shock” caused by adverse factors during the recovery process and sustainable improvement of eco­
nomic output at the end of recovery. Therefore, we adopt a dynamic input–output model that integrates capital
damage and affected people and apply it to an extreme flood in 2016, Wuhan City, China, building the rela­
tionship between 7 recovery actions (rescue funds) and changes of two features, analyzing the impact of resil­
ience on the dynamic recovery path features through 6 characteristic variables constructed in this paper. Results
show that (1) economic resilience increases from no to actual action, the dropping rate caused by “secondary
shock” decreases 30.4%, and Wuhan’s economic output has achieved an improvement in sustainability of
0.088% compared to the pre-disaster level, which contributes permanently to reducing vulnerability to future
disasters. (2) only 21.81% (compared to the actual scenario) of the rescue funds is needed to support 30%
reduction action plus 0.02% sustainable improvement. But to support the 50% recovery action, 78.92% of the
rescue funds is needed. This paper aims to provide a new perspective for the refined dynamic assessment of
resilience and to prove the role of resilience in promoting short-term post-disaster recovery and long-term
sustainable development.

1. Introduction development to some extent. To reduce post-disaster losses, govern­

ments across the world have issued a series of rescue measures and
The frequency of climate change induced disasters has caused policies for pre-disaster preparedness as well as post-disaster recovery
damages amounting to trillions of US dollars worldwide (MunichRe, and reconstruction (McMichael et al., 2006; UNISDR, 2015).
2018; RoyalSociety, 2014), thereby, hindering social economic However, to effectively determine whether these measures and

* Corresponding author at: Key Laboratory of Land Surface Pattern and Simulation, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
E-mail addresses: zhangzhengtao@bnu.edu.cn (Z. Zhang), pengcui@imde.ac.cn (P. Cui), haojiansheng14@mails.ucas.ac.cn (J. Hao), ningli@bnu.edu.cn (N. Li),
zengzhaoqi24@icould.com (Z. Zeng), ryanliu_xy@163.com (Y. Liu), zouqiang@imde.ac.cn (Q. Zou), huang_cf@mail.bnu.edu.cn (C. Huang), wushengnan_wu@163.
com (S. Wu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105443
Received 22 September 2020; Received in revised form 4 March 2021; Accepted 8 August 2021
Available online 18 August 2021
0925-7535/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Z. Zhang et al.
policies can “enhance the capacity of disaster prevention and mitigation
to achieve sustainable development”, a quantitative assessment of the
speed and effect of post-disaster recovery is still required. This is espe­
cially essential, for the recovery of the economic system, which is one of
the most important elements at risk and the objective of the above
measures and policies. The introduction of the disaster resilience
concept provides a scientific and an effective judgment basis for fully
understanding the post-disaster recovery process and the mechanism of
hazard-affected bodies (Bruneau et al., 2003; Chang and Shinozuka,
2004; Rose, 2004). Although there is no consensus on the disaster
resilience concept, its essence, which is the ability of a system to resist,
absorb, and recover from the adverse effects of disasters and sustainably
improve the its adaptability, has been widely recognized (Bruneau et al.,
2003; Chang and Shinozuka, 2004; Cutter et al., 2010; Deliang Chen
et al., 2019; IPCC, 2014; Rose, 2004; Klimek Peter, et al., 2019; O’Neill
E.D. et al., 2019).
Some studies quantify post-disaster dynamic economic resilience
(DER, its definition refers to Appendix A) by calculating the change in
the degree of reduction in the recovery period and the degree of
reduction in indirect economic losses (IELs, its definition refers to Ap­
pendix A) (Galbusera and Giannopoulos, 2018; Hallegatte S, 2014b;
Jonkeren and Giannopoulos, 2014; Rose and Liao, 2005; Xia et al., 2018;
Xie et al., 2018). Rose et al. (2004; 2005) defined economic resilience,
distinguished between static and dynamic economic resilience, and
summarized their quantitative measurement methods based on recovery
time and IELs evaluation results, using computable general equilibrium
model (CGE, its definition refers to Appendix A). Hallegatte S (2014a;
2014b) also distinguished macro and micro economic resilience and
summarized measurement methods based on IEL evaluation results
using the input–output model (IO, its definition refers to Appendix A). In
a case study, Klimek P et al. (2019) estimated the dynamic economic
resilience of 56 sectors in 43 countries between 2000 and 2014 to pre­
dict economic growth and recovery using the IO model. Xie et al. (2018)
also evaluated the dynamic economic resilience of Sichuan Province
after the Wenchuan earthquake by calculating the dynamic change path
of IELs. Such studies employed a the cutting-edge approach to the
quantitative assessment of resilience, and in line with the essence, their
resilience evaluation consisted of assessing the dynamic value in the
process from the time when the disaster occurred to post-disaster re­
covery completion. However, most of the studies focused on the resil­
ience of fixed capital stock (the main source of direct economic loss, e.g.,
infrastructure, houses, etc.), ignoring another important component of
economic recovery: the affected people (or the affected labor force). As
one of the three factors of productivity, its reduction in supply and re­
covery will have a key impact on the comprehensiveness and accuracy of
the economic resilience assessment.
In addition, most previous studies focused more on the effect of
economic resilience on the overall shape of post-disaster recovery path,
such as linear, non-linear or combination recovery. However, they still
ignored the assessment of two important features that may appear in the
recovery path:
• The “secondary shock” to the economic system caused by adverse
factors during the recovery process, such as: i) the cumulative effect
of the exhaustion of production inventory, the inability to replenish
due to traffic interruption (we term it insufficient inventory, such as
many well-known hard drive manufacturers in Thailand were unable
to produce due to 2011 flood, which led to an increase in the cost and
sell price of global computer equipment); ii) secondary disasters with
long time intervals (e.g. the mass debris flow in Qingping Township
in 2010 induced by the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake); and iii) dam­
age to the newly-built structure due to the unreasonable recon­
struction policy (e.g. the newly-build houses and water supply
facilities after 2008 Wenchuan earthquake were destroyed by debris
flow in 2010 due to unreasonable site selection). In this study, we
2
Safety Science 144 (2021) 105443
focus on the “secondary shock” to the economic system caused by
insufficient inventory due to the impact of economic resilience.
• The sustainable improvement of economic output, which refers to
the extent to which the value added (VA, its definition refers to
Appendix A) converges at the end of post-disaster recovery compared
to its pre-disaster level. If the value added increases sustainably, it
indicates that the economic system will benefit from the recon­
struction process and produce better products and services.
Furthermore, advanced productivity and stronger industrial linkages
can better resist, absorb and recover from the shock of future
disasters.
These studies, therefore, ignored a refined quantitative assessment of
economic resilience. Resilience has the characteristics of preventing
failures from having a ripple effect across systems (Foundation, 2013)
and adapting, re-establishing, and developing more suitable system
configurations to improve system sustainability (IPCC, 2014). There­
fore, it is necessary to quantitatively assess the impact of adverse factors
encountered in the recovery process and the degree of the system’s
sustainable or unsustainable development at the end of the recovery.
This has also been emphasized in the “Resilience to Extreme Weather”
report (RoyalSociety, 2014) and a general framework of climate resil­
ience actions proposed by Chen et al. (2019). In addition, in a general
sense, strengthening post-disaster rescue efforts (e.g., rescue funds) can
effectively improve resilience and contribute to the sustainability of the
economic system’s ability to resist disasters. However, whether the
actual economic development can support the demand of post-disaster
recovery must be considered. Most current research on the quantita­
tive assessment of economic resilience remains in the exploration stage,
in which theoretical and methodological research takes place under the
assumption that rescue efforts can meet the demand of post-disaster
recovery. Therefore, we will further develop innovations by
combining theories and developing applications of disaster economic
resilience in terms of the refined assessment of the recovery process.
In this study, by quantifying the impact of capital stock damage and
the number of affected people, we adopt the ARIL model which is
designed to evaluate the quantitative relationship between economic
resilience, the recovery period, and IELs, to emphasize the impact of
resilience on adverse factors such as an insufficient inventory during the
recovery process; and to emphasize the sustainable improvement of
system performance when rebounding to a stable state. In addition, the
flood disaster that occurred in Wuhan City on July 6, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as the “7.6 Wuhan flood disaster”), is used as a case study.
Combined with “accelerating the pace of post-disaster recovery and
efficiently completing reconstruction ahead of schedule,” which is the
concern of governments and the insurance market, we set seven sce­
narios of recovery period action (including a natural recovery scenario
and an actual recovery scenario) to compare the impact of economic
resilience supported by rescue funds on the recovery period, IELs and the
degree of the system’s sustainable development. We aim to determine
the most economical and effective economic resilience scheme under
different economic development levels and apply them to actual post-
disaster recovery measures and management. In addition, combined
with the nature of IELs, which reflects the losses generated in the post-
disaster recovery process, we define the strength of economic resil­
ience as the reduction in IELs under a decreasing recovery action
compared with the IELs under the natural recovery scenario.
2. Research method and material
1.1. The ARIL model
The simulation method we used in this study is a new dynamic
input–output model which integrates the economic impacts of capital
damage and affected people, called the Adaptive Regional Input-Output
with Inventory and Labor (ARIL) model. This model is constructed on
the Adaptive Regional Input-Output Inventory model (ARIO-Inventory,
Z. Zhang et al.
Fig. 1. The dynamic recovery process of post-disaster system performance and the role of resilience (Fig. 1a shows the role of economic resilience on economic
system after flood which is adapted from the Zhang et al. (2019); Fig. 1b shows the role of resilience on infrastructure after earthquake which is adapted from the
Bruneau et al. (2003)).
its definition refers to Appendix A), proposed by Hallegatte (2014b). It
inherits the advantage of less demand for exogenous variables of the
Leontief production function, and also fully considers many character­
istics of the post-disaster economic response: (1) the imbalance between
the supply side and demand side caused by the damage of capital stock
of each sector; (2) the inability of the affected people to participate in
production (i.e., the post-disaster short-term shortage of labor supply).
The impact on the supply side is larger than the impact of capital
damage, and the initial impact and recovery process of the affected
people are integrated into the economic model to depict the supply-side
changes and demand-side responses; (3) the impact of production
bottleneck on production capacity; (4) the adaptive behavior of the
government and the market; and (5) the heterogeneity influence of in­
ventory shortage on production. The overall relationship equation be­
tween supply and demand is simplified as follows:
Local demand
⏞̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏟⏟̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏞ Reconstruction
∑
demand
⏞̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏟⏟̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏞
YAi = MDi,j + Qinvi + Qgvi + Qhsi + EIi + QRfi + QRhi
j
Where, i is the i-th sector, YA is the supply of capital stock and labor.
The total demand (TD) is composed of each variable on the right side of
Equation (1). MD is the intermediate demand, Qinv is the inventory
demand, Qgv and Qhs are the local government and household demand,
respectively. EI is the export and import demand, which also includes
the short-term EI labor demand from outside the labor market; QRf and
QRh represent the household, infrastructure and business reconstruction
demand. i and j refer to the sectors in the row and column of the Input-
Output table. In the aftermath of a disaster, the supply decreases due to
capital damage and labor shortage—the total demand increases due to
demand for reconstruction, inventory, export, import and other re­
quirements. The imbalance between supply and total demand leads to
the IEL, and it can be evaluated according to the following formula:
n ∫ p〈 〉 time, or the change of “shape” of the recovery curve (linear, non-linear,
∑ YAi (t)
IEL = σ i,j (t − 1)dt (2)
i=1 1 YAi (0)
As for all the sectors(n), if supply and demand are in equilibrium,
then IEL equals zero, the recovery is complete, and the reconstruction
period is p. In addition, the change in price (σ i,j ) is driven by the rela­
tionship between supply and demand. YAi(t) is the supply of sector i at
timestep t, which is calculated by Equation (3).
YAi (t) = min(αi (t)Y1i (t), Y2i (t))
Y2i (t) = (I − A)− 1 × TDi (t)
Safety Science 144 (2021) 105443
where, (I − A)− 1 × TDi (t) refers to the Leontief function, which is
used to evaluate the supply (Y2i (t)) due to the changes of the total de­
mand (TDi) of sector i at timestep t. Y1i (t) refers to the supply due to the
capital damage and labor shortage, but it can be increased by a
parameter called overproduction capacity (αi(t)). The actual supply of
sector i at timestep t is defined by the minimum of Y1i (t) and Y2i (t)
based on the ‘bucket theory’ in the IO model. The overproduction ca­
pacity (αi(t)) is calculated by equation (4):
TDi (t − 1) − YAi (t − 1) Δt
αi (t − 1) + (αmax
i − αi (t − 1))⋅ ⋅ →αi (t) (4)
TDi (t − 1) ta
where, αmax represents maximum overproduction capacity, which is
i
determined by the post-disaster rescue funds. The overproduction ca­
pacity can vary between 0 and αmax , and is determined by the difference
i
of supply and total demand in the previous timestep. △t equals 1, and ta
refers to the adaption time (Hallegatte S, 2014b).
(1)
1.2. The theory of refined economic resilience assessment using ARIL
model
The theory of refined economic resilience in the study comes from
Rose et al. (2004; 2005), Hallegatte S (2014a) and Xie et al. (2018), but
further analyzes the “refined impact” of economic resilience on the post-
disaster recovery process, especially the two theoretical optimization
aspects: (1) the extent to which resilience affects “secondary shock”
caused by adverse factors that may occur in the recovery process; and (2)
the extent to which resilience affects the sustainability of economic
output when the economic system rebounds to a new stable state after
being adaptive or rescued.
In the first aspect, the current theory of economic resilience pays
more attention to assessing its role in the decline in the total recovery
turning point to recover, the dynamic slope, etc.), However, whether
economic resilience has a corrective effect on the degree of curve fluc­
tuations caused by these adverse factors, needs to be further clarified.
Therefore, the first aspect aims to improve the theory through a refined
assessment of the correction effect of economic resilience on the fluc­
tuates in the recovery process.
For the second aspect, economic resilience affects not only the cur­
rent post-disaster recovery process, but also may affect the ability of
resistance and recovery from the effects of the disasters in the future.
(3)
However, the current economic resilience theory mainly evaluates its
impact on the recovery process before the value added returns to the pre-
3
Z. Zhang et al.
Fig. 2. The spatial distribution of flood risk and the industrial layout in the core of Wuhan City.
disaster level. The quantitative relationship between economic resil­
ience and the sustainable improvement degree of value added at the end
of the recovery process needs to be further clarified. Therefore, the
second aspect aims to complement the theoretical composition structure
through a comprehensive focus on the state of system performance
during and at the end of recovery.
In addition, the strength of economic resilience can be quantitatively
calculated by the recovery rate increase of system performance under
the post-disaster rescue effort. Bruneau et al. (2003) calculated the
improvement degree of the recovery curve by different adaptive be­
haviors of the government through the analysis of laboratory experi­
ments to quantitatively evaluate the post-earthquake resilience
(Fig. 1b).
The ARIL model can evaluate the curve of the economic system’s
production changes (Fig. 1a), which is consistent with the essence of the
quantitative assessment of economic resilience and the characteristics of
4
Safety Science 144 (2021) 105443
the impact of resilience on the post-disaster recovery process (Fig. 1b).
The ARIL model also considers the impact of capital damage, affected
population, adaptive behaviors of the government and market, and
adverse factors (e.g., insufficient inventory) on the economic system
performance, which can build a corresponding quantitative relationship
with the strength of economic resilience. The key evaluation results such
as recovery time, and the IEL (value of the area enclosed by the curve
and Y = 1 in Fig. 1a) can clearly describe the change in the strength of
economic resilience. Therefore, by setting different post-disaster re­
covery scenarios and parameters, the ARIL model can finely describe the
secondary impact on the process of recovery and the degree of sus­
tainable improvement of the system’s performance. The import and
export capacity of the disaster area will be affected because of the impact
of roads, railways, harbors, airport interruption, and the resettlement or
evacuation of the affected people in the aftermath of a disaster. How­
ever, to reflect the resilience of the economic system itself, the model
Z. Zhang et al.
assumes that the import and export products and services can still meet
the demand for post-disaster recovery (e.g., through the replacement of
transportation routes or modes, etc).
1.3. Uncertainty of evaluation results and robustness of the model
The evaluation results are difficult to verify due to the lack of sta­
tistical data on IELs. Therefore, this paperdetermined the accuracy of the
results by referring to the flood footprint model(Mendoza-Tinoco et al.,
2017) and ARIL model(Zhang et al., 2019): (1) uncertainty assessment
of the results, which includes the uncertainties related to the model
parameters, and (2) model stability verification, which includes the
robustness analysis of changes in the parameters.
To assess the uncertainty of the model parameters, two uncertainty
parameters groups are defined including the upper and lower thresholds
of the uncertainty range. Parameters in the upper threshold group is set
to upward by 30% of the fastest recovery group of all the 7 scenarios,
and the lower threshold group is set to downward by 30% of the slowest
recovery group. The uncertainty range can be seen in the gray shading in
Fig. 3.
In addition, the robustness of the model is verified by examining the
results are still convergently and smoothly recovering to pre-disaster
level rather than dispersion within the uncertainty range. According to
the uncertainty results in Fig. 3, the recovery paths of upper and lower
uncertainty range are stable and convergent, indicating that the model
has good robustness. Other detailed verification process can be seen in
ARIL model assessment (Zhang et al., 2019).
Fig. 3. The impacts of economic resilience on the changes in the dynamic recovery curves (Fig. 3a represents the whole recovery process of curves under different
recovery actions; Fig. 3b represents the whole recovery process of the second VA drop in the recovery process; Fig. 3c represents the changes in curves after VA
exceeds their pre-disaster level).
5
Safety Science 144 (2021) 105443
1.4. Study area and data
In this study, the “7.6 Wuhan flood disaster” is taken as a typical
disaster event for three reasons: (1) Wuhan City is built along the
mainstream of the Yangtze River (Fig. 2) and is affected by subtropical
anticyclones. Therefore, it is vulnerable to extreme precipitation and
flooding. The “7.6 Wuhan Flood disaster” is the flood disaster that
caused the largest direct economic loss in the history of Wuhan City,
with losses amounting to more than 1.2 billion USD; (2) The Chinese
government first activated the “statistical system for special major nat­
ural disaster loss” for flood disasters, collecting detailed data on direct
economic loss and affected people at the sector scale; and (3) The Wuhan
government has taken a series of measures and polices to reduce the
losses caused by floods, for example, by investing 2108 million USD in
disaster prevention and mitigation projects (e.g., upgrading drainage
pipelines), which can be regarded as overproduction parameters, the
role of which can be verified in post-disaster recovery.
The input data of the ARIL model mainly conclude three parts: the
direct economic loss, fixed asset stock and the affected laborers of each
sector, the IO table. The direct economic loss and affected laborers are
obtained from National Disaster Reduction Center, Ministry of Emer­
gency Management of China and the fixed asset stock in 2015 can be
calculated based on the perpetual inventory method (Hall and Jones,
1999) and previous data (Wu et al., 2014). The 2013 IO table of Wuhan
City was built in cooperation with the Industrial Ecology Virtual Labo­
ratory of China (IELab China) (Wang, 2017), and the number of in­
dustries in the table has been adjusted to 19 in accordance with disaster
statistical data based on the industrial classification of national eco­
nomic activities (refers to Appendix A).
Z. Zhang et al. Safety Science 144 (2021) 105443

To better combine actual socio-economic development, to respond to
the government’s mission of “accelerating the post-disaster recovery
period,” and to analyze the relationship between the level of economic
development, rescue efforts and economic resilience, we set seven re­
covery actions for reducing the recovery period (including an actual
recovery action). The first action is to assess the recovery period without
any rescue funds (no recovery action), depending only on the economic
resilience of Wuhan City. The next five actions are 10%-50% reductions
in the duration of no recovery action, reflecting the quantitative rela­
tionship between reducing the recovery period (development of eco­
nomic resilience) and the demands for rescue funds. Regarding the
actual recovery action, we calculate the recovery period based on the
2108 million USD investment by the Wuhan government (Zhang et al.,
2019), which, to a certain extent, can be regarded as an examination of
an actual investment to improve economic resilience in the aftermath of
a disaster.
2. Refined quantitative assessment of economic resilience
2.1. Results of the impact of economic resilience on dynamic post-disaster
recovery path
Table 1 describes the relationship between the seven scenarios’ re­
covery actions and their key parameter values to better reflect the dif­
ference in the role of economic resilience on the post-disaster recovery
path. The rescue funds under 10% recovery action to 50% recovery
action are obtained by reversely running the ARIL model; that is, by
running the model multiple times to match the required recovery period
and obtain the rescue fund parameter corresponding to the result. The
changes in the time to recover to the pre-disaster level and the IELs
underlying the improvement in economic resilience are shown in Fig. 3.
In the ARIL model, the value added (VA) is used to represent the post-
disaster production capacity of the economic system on each day during
the recovery period. A change in VA equal to 1 indicates that the
economy in the disaster area has recovered to its pre-disaster level. A
change in VA greater than 1 indicates that the economy has exceeded the
pre-disaster level, starting to benefit from the rescue funds. In addition,
the sum of the difference between the post-disaster VA and its pre-
disaster value during the recovery period is the result of IEL, which
can be understood as the area enclosed by the curve of the recovery path
and Y = 1.
After the disaster occurred, the VA decreased to 98.4% due to the
direct economic loss and the number of affected people. The recovery
path presents a non-linear shape according to the dynamic economic
resilience path (Fig. 3a). However, the two features of recovery paths
differ as the recovery actions change (Fig. 3a), and they can be quanti­
tatively reflected by the following six characteristic variables (Table 2):
(1) On days 72–101 in the aftermath of the disaster, the VA dropped
for a second time (Fig. 3b). Many adverse factors caused the second drop
in system performance including external factors, such as the secondary
disaster, and internal factors, such as the insufficient inventory or
improper rescue strategy. Through a comprehensive analysis of disaster-
causing characteristics (multiple precipitation), Wuhan’s industrial
structure (developed manufacturing, service, education and scientific
research industry), and the spatial overlap characteristics of high
waterlogging risk areas and industries in Wuhan, the adverse factor in
this study refers to the insufficient inventory of the manufacturing in­
dustry. The insufficient supply to downstream industries and reduced
demand from upstream industries affected the value added of the entire
economic system through the industrial linkage. This dropping process
has several characteristic points, which are related to economic resil­
ience (Fig. 3b):

Table 1
Relationship between 7 scenario’s recovery actions.
Name Recovery period Scenarios description
(days)

No recovery action 535 No post-disaster rescue funds from government and public, dependent only on the economic development, the economic structure of the
disaster area for recovery, measuring the effectiveness of its economic resilience on post-disaster recovery.
10% recovery 482 The recovery period is reduced by 10% compared to the period under no recovery action (from 535 to 482 days). The rescue funds (αmax)
action required for the period is 100.05% (83.69 million USD)
20% recovery 429 The recovery period is reduced by 20% compared to the period under no recovery action (from 535 to 429 days). The rescue funds (αmax)
action required for the period is 100.13% (213.55 million USD)
30% recovery 374 The recovery period is reduced by 30% compared to the period under no recovery action (from 535 to 374 days). The rescue funds (αmax)
action required for the period is 100.28% (459.80 million USD)
40% recovery 321 The recovery period is reduced by 40% compared to the period under no recovery action (from 535 to 321 days). The rescue funds (αmax)
action required for the period is 100.59% (970.22 million USD)
50% recovery 268 The recovery period is reduced by 50% compared to the period under no recovery action (from 535 to 268 days). The rescue funds (αmax)
action required for the period is 101.01 % (1663.66 million USD)
Actual recovery 248 Actual rescue funds (αmax) are 101.12% (2108 million USD), and the corresponding recovery period result is 248 days. Input data and
action other exogenous parameter values refer to Zhengtao Zhang (2019).

Table 2
The information of six characteristic variables constructed in this study.
Name Definition Corresponding VA value (%) and time(day) VA and time
changes
VA value under no VA value under actual
action action

Second drop point The point in the recovery path where the VA begins to drop 99.32%/70 99.39%/73 +0.7%/+3
Stop dropping point The lowest point in the second drop of the path where the VA stops dropping and 99.09%/85 99.23%/85 +0.14%/0
begins to rise
Recovery point The end point of the overall secondary drop process in the recovery path where 99.43%/101 99.45%/96 +0.02%/-5
the VA begins to recover normally
Dropping rate The rate of decrease of VA value from the second drop point to the stop dropping 0.23%/– 0.16%/– − 0.07%/–
point
Recovery rate The rate of increase in VA value from the stop dropping point to the recovery 0.32%/– 0.19%/– − 0.03%/–
point
Recovery completion The point where the VA converges and remains stable at the end of the recovery − 0.002%/597 0.088%/589 +0.09%/+8
point path

6
Z. Zhang et al. Safety Science 144 (2021) 105443

Fig. 4. The necessity of refined dynamic

resilience for the short-term post-disaster
recovery and long-term sustainable develop­
ment (Fig. 4a is a schematic diagram sum­
marized from previous dynamic economic
resilience researches (Xie et al. (2018) and
Klimek P et al. (2019)); Fig. 4b select typical
results in Fig. 3, including the strongest
resilience scenario(the upper uncertainty
result), the lowest resilience scenario (the
lower uncertainty result), and a relatively
higher cost-benefit resilience scenario (30%
action result), respectively).

Table 3
The assessment results of the quantitative relationship between recovery actions and demands for rescue funds.
Actions for reducing the Recovery period Economic impacts (million USD) Demand for rescue funds Percentage of rescue
recovery period (days) (million USD) funds
IEL caused by insufficient Sustainable IELs
inventory development

No recovery action 535 1.13 (-0.327, +0.312) 0 (0,0) 101.46 (-3.81, 0 0%

+5.66)
10% recovery action 482 1.12 (-0.326, +0.315) 0 (0,0) 99.83 (-4.87, 83.69 3.97%
+6.36)
20% recovery action 429 1.11 (-0.324, +0.331) 0 (0,0) 97.20 (-6.56, 213.55 10.13%
+9.94)
30% recovery action 374 1.09 (-0.319, +0.331) 1.98 (-1.25, +2.48) 92.27 (-9.69, 459.80 21.81%
+9.59)
40% recovery action 321 1.05 (-0.312, +0.346) 5.45 (-3.16, +5.86) 84.18 (-14.67, 970.22 46.03%
+13.01)
50% recovery action 268 0.98 (-0.303, +0.374) 13.63 (-7.4, 69.03 (–23.39, 1663.66 78.92%
+12.69) +19.27)
Actual recovery action 248 0.95 (-0.299, +0.388) 18.65 (-9.87, 60.76 (-27.44, 2108 100%
+16.05) +22.61)

Notes: The positive and negative numbers in parentheses in the economic impacts section columns to the range of uncertainty. The range is calculated by using the
uncertainty calculation in section 2.2, with the parameters of each group being used as standard parameters. The IEL caused by insufficient inventory is obtained by
calculating the IEL of the second decrease period on days 72–101 in the aftermath of a disaster.

The second drop point: With the increase of economic resilience
supported by recovery action, the time of occurrence of the second drop
point is postponed and its VA value is higher. From no action to actual
action, the time is postponed by two days, and the VA value increases
from 99.32% to 99.39%, especially for the 30% and 50% recovery ac­
tion; their increasing degrees are the largest.
The stop dropping point: The enhanced economic resilience
effectively increases the VA value when the point is reached, as it in­
creases from 99.09% to 99.23%. In addition, After the 30% recovery
action, the VA corresponding to this point increases significantly, and
the increase reaches the fastest at the 40% recovery action. However, the
increase has decreased under the actual recovery action.
The recovery point: With the increased economic resilience, the
time to the recovery point has been advanced six days (from 101 to 96).
Especially from the 30% recovery action, the recovery point’s VA value
has been largely improved, indicating that its recovery effect has been
significantly improved.
The dropping rate: During the dropping period from the second
drop point to the stop dropping point, the VA value drops by 0.23%
under no recovery action, and 0.16% under actual recovery action; the
value has declined by 0.07%, which means that the degree of decrease
has declined by 30.4% compared with no recovery action, as recovery
action increases. It reveals that the increase of economic resilience can
effectively slow down second drop of VA: the rate has declined by 0.2%
per day from no recovery action to actual recovery action.
The recovery rate: During the secondary recovery period from the
stop dropping point to the recovery point, the VA recovers by 0.32%
under no recovery action, while it remains 0.19% under actual recovery
action; the degree decreases as recovery action increases. The main
reason may be that the VA value of the actual recovery action is higher
than that of the no recovery action at the stop dropping point. However,
their VA values at the recovery point are similar, resulting in a smaller
recovery space for VA value under the stronger economic resilience.
In addition, analyzing the whole dropping process, the degree of the
second decline in VA gradually reduces, or even offsets the impact of
insufficient inventory (as shown in the result of the upper uncertainty in
Fig. 3b), as economic resilience increases. The degree of decline under
different recovery actions differs significantly, especially with the re­
covery action increasing from 30% to 50 %, the degree of decline de­
creases visibly, indicating that the impact of insufficient inventory
requires stronger economic resilience to offset.
(2) With the recovery action increasing from 10% to actual recovery
action, VA has exceeded its pre-disaster level and stabilized at a certain
value, which indicates that the production capacity of the economic
system (system performance) has sustainably improved (e.g., the pro­
duction technology has been updated or the drainage pipes have been
improved) during the post-disaster recovery period supported by rescue
funds. There is a key characteristic point during this period, and it has a
close relationship with economic resilience.
Recovery completion point: With increases in economic resilience,
the VA value becomes larger when the economic system stabilizes at the
recovery completion point (we defined the value as the sustainable
development degree). The sustainable development degree increases
from 0.001% under 10% recovery action to 0.088% under actual re­
covery actions (actual rescue funds of 2108 million USD), indicating that
the system performance benefits from an increase in economic resilience

7
Z. Zhang et al.
(Fig. 3c). The sustainable development degree increases relatively small
(0.008%) with the recovery action increasing from 10% to 20%. How­
ever, when the action increases to 30%, the degree begins to increase
significantly. The increased degree can be up to 0.052% when action
increases from 30% to 50%, and up to 0.068% when action increases
from 30% to actual action (Fig. 3c).
Therefore, there is a close relationship between economic resilience,
the elimination of adverse factors in the recovery process, and the sus­
tainable development degree of system performance at the end of the
recovery process. The increased economic resilience can decrease or
even offset the impacts of secondary VA drop caused by adverse factors,
and make the economic system performance greater than the pre-
disaster level, when the system rebounds to stability. This is conducive
to reducing vulnerability and increasing mitigation for future disasters.
In addition, the 30% recovery action is a watershed that divides the
effect of post-disaster recovery for the “7.6 Wuhan flood disaster”, since
30% recovery action, the reduction degree of IEL, post-disaster recovery
speed, and the increase of the sustainable development degree, have a
greater response degree to the enhancement of economic resilience.
2.2. The role of economic resilience in adverse factors and sustainable
development
As economic resilience increases, the time taken to recover to the
pre-disaster level decreases, the shape of the recovery curve grows
steeper, and the role of economic resilience in the post-disaster effect
and the reduction of IELs becomes significant (Fig. 3a). These results are
consistent with the research of Xie et al. (2018) and Rose and Liao
(2005) (Fig. 4a). In addition, under the scenario of no recovery action,
the capacity of the economic system of Wuhan City to recover to the pre-
disaster level depends on its economic resilience; however, the recovery
time is longer, and the IEL is larger (Fig. 3a). If the economy of a region is
less developed, then resilience may be unable to support economic re­
covery to the pre-disaster level, which is consistent with the research of
Chen et al. (2019).
However, in this study, we found that the increase of economic
resilience can not only change the shape of the recovery path, but also
offset the factors that adversely affect the recovery of VA (e.g., insuffi­
cient inventory) and permanently improve the production capacity,
reflecting the importance of economic resilience (Fig. 4). Regarding the
impact of economic resilience on post-disaster recovery, economic
resilience effectively prevents the second drop of the VA curve caused by
insufficient inventory and even completely offsets its impact under
strong economic resilience, which will have a greater influence on the
IEL. Taking the recovery path of the 30% recovery action as an example,
although economic resilience does not have a significant impact on the
time taken for the entire economy recovery to reach the pre-disaster
level, which is similar to the result under low economic resilience, it
has an clear offsetting effect on the impact of insufficient inventory,
consequently reducing the large IEL. Regarding the impact of economic
resilience on the sustainable development of production capacity (sys­
tem performance), economic resilience determines the improvement
level of production capacity, which will reduce IELs and increase the
disaster prevention capacity in the future. Additionally, taking 30%
recovery action as an example (Fig. 4b), although the recovery time is
similar, the improvement in the economic system’s performance sus­
tainably reduces its vulnerability. Doing so, effectively improves resis­
tance to disasters in the future and reduces direct losses to reduce the
post-disaster recovery time and IEL.
Therefore, a more refined and comprehensive analysis of the impact
of economic resilience on post-disaster recovery will help identify the
role of resilience in reducing losses due to disasters.
8
Safety Science 144 (2021) 105443
3. The application of economic resilience to disaster
management
Most previous studies assumed that the post-disaster rescue funds
can meet the demand of economic resilience, but the rescue funds from
governments, society and insurance vary due to the economic devel­
opment in the disaster area. Therefore, a refined assessment of economic
resilience should be combined with the actual level of rescue funds in the
disaster area to provide the post-disaster recovery scheme that matches
the economic development in this area. By comparing the changes in
IELs and the degree of sustainable development among the seven post-
disaster recovery actions, this section applies the quantitative assess­
ment results of economic resilience to the actual disaster management of
the “7.6 Wuhan flood disaster”, providing a reasonable and effective
policy for disaster prevention and mitigation.
Table 3 presents the results of the IELs caused by insufficient in­
ventory, the sustainable development of production capacity due to
rescue funds, IELs, and the demand for rescue funds of “7.6 Wuhan flood
disaster” under the seven scenarios of actions for reducing the post-
disaster recovery. The demand for rescue funds under actual recovery
action comes from the Wuhan government’s actual investment (Zhang
et al., 2019); the calculation method for rescue funds under 10% to 50%
recovery action is referred to in section 2.1.
The post-disaster recovery period is 535 days in the no recovery
action scenario, and the IELs are approximately 101.46 (-3.81, +5.66)
million USD. In the actual recovery action (Wuhan’s economic system
received an investment of 2108 million USD from the government, so­
ciety, and insurance industry), the post-disaster recovery period is
reduced to 248 days, and the IELs are reduced to 60.76 (-27.44, +22.61)
million USD, including 0.95 (-0.299, +0.388) million USD insufficient
inventory and 18.65 (-9.87, +16.05) million USD sustainable develop­
ment of production capacity. These results indicate the significant role
of economic resilience in post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. In
addition, the VA curve eventually stabilizes at 1.088% compared to the
pre-disaster level (Fig. 3), indicating that the economy of Wuhan City
will sustainably benefit from this post-disaster recovery.
In the action increases from 10% to 50% in the other recovery ac­
tions, then rescue funds in the range of 83.69 to 1663.66 million USD
will be needed to support these actions. We defined the actual rescue
funds of 2108 million USD as 100% to uniformly measure the percentage
of rescue funds to reduce the recovery period by 10%-50%. The results
show an exponential positive correlation between the increase actions
and the supporting rescue funds underlying them. When the action is set
low, only a small amount of rescue funds are needed to support the
achievement of the action. If 10% recovery action is set, only 3.97% of
the rescue funds is needed for support. If 20% action is set, then 10.13%
is needed for support. Additionally, if 30% action is set, then 21.81%
support is needed. In particular, the economy can achieve a 0.02%
sustainable improvement compared to the pre-disaster level. This action
seems to be suitable for disaster areas with lesser economic develop­
ment. However, with the improvement of recovery actions, the
achievement of these actions will significantly increase the demand for
rescue funds. When the action of 50% is set, 78.92% of the rescue funds
are needed, which is 20 times the amount of funds required for the 40%
action. The reason may be the complexity of the industrial linkage.
Direct linkages among industries can be recovered using a lower amount
of recovery funds, but deeper and indirect linkages require greater
rescue funds.
Therefore, economic resilience supported by rescue funds can
effectively reduce the recovery period and IELs, However, different re­
gions need to set an appropriate resilience scheme based on their own
economic development and disaster intensity. The most economical and
Z. Zhang et al.
effective resilience scheme that can accelerate the recovery speed and
reduce IELs is preferred for less-developed areas, such as the 30% re­
covery action. However, for developed areas, the best resilience scheme
they can pursue involves minimizing the recovery period and the impact
of adverse factors and maximizing system performance sustainably,
thereby reducing system vulnerability, such as the 50%, or higher re­
covery action.
4. Conclusion and discussion
By setting seven scenarios for reducing the recovery period and
analyzing their dynamic recovery paths, this study adopts the Adaptive
Regional Input-Output with Inventory and Labor (ARIL) model to
quantitatively evaluate the impact of economic resilience on “secondary
shock” caused by adverse factors and the sustainable development of
economic system. We exemplify this through a case study: the flood
disaster that occurred in Wuhan city, China, on July 6, 2016.
The results show that: (1) The economic resilience supported by
rescue funds can not only change the shape of the recovery path but also
offset the adverse factors (e.g. insufficient inventory) in the process of
recovery and sustainably improve the performance of the economic
system; (2) The degree of dropping rate of value added (VA) decreases
by almost 1/3, and the recovery time advances by seven days as the
increase of economic resilience from no recovery action to actual re­
covery action. In addition, the performance of the economic system has
a sustainable improvement of 0.088% compared to the pre-disaster level
due to rescue funds of 2108 million USD, which will contribute signif­
icantly to reducing vulnerability and increasing mitigation of future
disasters; (3) The most suitable level of economic resilience for each area
should be based on the area’s economic development instead of the
strongest level of economic resilience. When the action for reducing the
recovery period increases 10% to 50%, the demand for rescue funds
supporting economic resilience will increase from 3.97% to 78.92%
compared with the actual action, requiring an increase of approximately
20 times to support recovery action achievement. The lower economic
resilience can effectively reduce indirect economic losses (IELs) and the
recovery period in the secondary industry, while the sustainable
development degree and IEL reduction can change significantly with
stronger economic resilience.
According to the results, this study reveals the quantitatively rela­
tionship among the economic resilience supported by post-disaster
rescue fund, the IEL of “secondary shock” caused by inventory
shortage, and the degree of sustainable development of economic sys­
tem, demonstrating that the goal of “speeding up the post-disaster re­
covery” concerns not only the concept of time but also the rescue effort
behind it. When formulating post-disaster recovery strategies and
schedules, the government needs to fully consider the economic devel­
opment level itself to ensure that the rescue budget can support the
achievement of actions, instead of pursuing the strongest level of eco­
nomic resilience for fast recovery speed. For a less developed area, the
government should increase the rescue funds in a gradual and sustain­
able manner and in the most economical way to achieve the best rescue
effect. For a developed area, the government should further optimize
and improve disaster prevention and mitigation measures based on full
post-disaster recovery, thereby increasing the economic resilience sus­
tainably. The results provide a new perspective and case support for a
refined dynamic assessment of economic resilience, revealing the role of
resilience in promoting the short-term post-disaster recovery and long-
term sustainable development.
However, there are some points that still need elaboration. First,
different types of shocks may result in different IELs results. The types
mainly include: (i) different types of disasters and objects suffered by
9
Safety Science 144 (2021) 105443
disasters, such as instantaneous disaster (e.g., earthquake), may cause
extensive damage to the capital stock, while continual disaster (such as
floods) may cause a larger threat to the affected people; (ii) different
type of affected industries due to shock location. Different industries
(such as traditional industry and high-tech industry) have different in­
fluence and induction roles in industrial linkage; (iii) different industrial
structure, economic development and economic resilience of disaster
area. Although suffered by the same intensity of shock, the IELs will be
different because of the reasonable or simple industrial structure,
economically developed or less developed areas, strong or low resil­
ience; (iv) different occurrence time and source of shock. If the source of
first-time shock comes from disaster, but the second-time shock comes
from the following unreasonable recovery policy or inventory shortage,
like studies in this paper, it will bring about different IELs results.
Therefore, future studies should pay attention to different shock types
and the quantitative assessment of IELs due to different shock types.
Second, the secondary shock timing will directly affect the evalua­
tion result: (i) If the timing of the secondary shock is very close to the
first disruption, such as primary and secondary disaster, it can be inte­
grated into the disruption. The economic resilience will then act on the
integrated disruption; (ii) If the secondary shock takes places a while
after the first disruption and the economic system has not fully recov­
ered from the first disruption, such as the research in this paper, the
damage of the secondary shock may be amplified based on the first
disruption. The economic resilience will effectively mitigate or even
offset the damage to the economic system caused by the secondary shock
based on the evaluation results in this study; (iii) If the secondary shock
takes place after the first disruption, but the economic system has fully
recovered from the first disruption, the damages and recovery curve will
be evaluated separately. However, if supposing that the economic sys­
tem performance has sustainable development due to economic resil­
ience after the first disruption, the damage to the system after the
secondary shock will decrease, and its recovery speed may improve.
Therefore, in the future research, the role of economic resilience in the
impact of secondary shock should consider the time of the occurrence of
the secondary shock.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This research was funded by the National Natural Science Founda­
tion of China (No. 41907395); the National Key Research and Devel­
opment Program of China (2017YFC1502901, 2016YFA0602403); the
National Key Research and Development Program of China
(2017YFC0504701); Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, CAS
(QYZDY-SSW-DQC006); the Strategic Priority Research Program of
Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDA23090300); National Natural Science
Foundation of China (41775103 and 41871024); China Postdoctoral
Science Foundation (2021M690425, 2020T130647, 2019M650828);
the projects of the International partnership program of the Chinese
Academy of Sciences (No. 131551KYSB20160002).
Appendix
(See Tables A1 and A2)
Z. Zhang et al. Safety Science 144 (2021) 105443

Table A1
The definition of acronyms used in this paper.
Acronym Full name Definition in this paper

IEL Indirect economic loss the decrease in value added of economic system caused by: (i) direct economic loss due to capital damage and labor
shortage; (ii) the imbalance between supply and demand in various sectors due to direct economic loss.
DER dynamic economic resilience The ability and effect of the economic system to recover from a shock. The “effect” represents not only the shape and the
duration of recovery, but also the fluctuations in the shape of recovery time-path and the extent to which the value added
at the end of post-disaster recovery compared to its pre-disaster level.
VA Value added The new added value created by the economic system during a certain period of time in the production process after
excluding a series of cost. It is used to measure IELs in this paper to avoid double counting caused by the reduction in
output or the increase in expenses in a disaster aftermath.
IO model Input-Output model is an economic mathematical model that comprehensively analyzes the balance relationship between input and output
among various economic sectors in a region based on the input–output table.
CGE model Computable General Equilibrium Currently no standard definition, and it is generally described as a large-scale economic mathematical model that
model combines actual economic data with policy analysis based on general equilibrium theory and social accounting matrix
table.
ARIO-Inventory Adaptive Regional Input-Output A non-linear, dynamic economic mathematical model that considers inventory heterogeneity and the impact of post-
model Inventory model disaster policies. It has been widely used in floods, hurricanes, and earthquake.

Table A2
Disaster data per sector.
ID Sector Industry

1 Agriculture 1
2 Mining and extraction 2
3 Manufacturing 2
4 Electricity, steam, and hot water production and supply 2
5 Construction 2
6 Wholesale and retail trade 3
7 Transportation and warehousing 3
8 Accommodation and catering 3
9 Information 3
10 Finance, insurance 3
11 Real estate 3
12 Leasing and business service 3
13 Scientific research and technical service 3
14 Water resources, environment and public facilities management 3
15 Resident and other services 3
16 Education 3
17 Health, social security and social welfare 3
18 Culture, sports and entertainment 3
19 Public administration and social organization 3

References Mendoza-Tinoco, D., Guan, D., Zeng, Z., Xia, Y., Serrano, A., 2017. Flood footprint of the
2007 floods in the UK: The case of the Yorkshire and The Humber region. J Clean
Prod 168, 655–667.
Bruneau, M., Chang, S.E., Eguchi, R.T., Lee, G.C., O’Rourke, T.D., Reinhorn, A.M.,
MunichRe, 2018. Group Annual Report 2018. Munich, Germany.
Shinozuka, M., Tierney, K., Wallace, W.A., von Winterfeldt, D., 2003. A Framework
O’Neill, E.D., Crona, B., Ferrer, A.J.G., et al., 2019. From typhoons to traders: the role of
to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience of Communities. Earthq
patron-client relations in mediating fishery responses to natural disasters.
Spectra 19 (4), 733–752.
Environmental Research Letters 14 (045015), 1–10.
Chang, S.E., Shinozuka, M., 2004. Measuring Improvements in the Disaster Resilience of
Rose, Adam, 2004. Defining and measuring economic resilience to disasters. Disaster
Communities. Earthq Spectra 20 (3), 739–755.
Prevention and Management: An International Journal 13 (4), 307–314.
Cutter, S.L., Burton, C.G., Emrich, C.T., 2010. Disaster Resilience Indicators for
Rose, Adam, Liao, Shu-Yi, 2005. Modeling Regional Economic Resilience to Disasters: A
Benchmarking Baseline Conditions. J Homel Secur Emerg 7 (1).
Computable General Equilibrium Analysis of Water Service Disruptions. J Regional
Chen, D., Qin, D., Xiao, C., Bo, S.u., 2019. Climate resilience and its implications for
Sci 45 (1), 75–112.
China. Climate Change Research 15 (2), 167–177.
RoyalSociety, 2014. Resilience to extreme weather. Royal Society, London.
Foundation, R., 2013. Rebound: building a more resilient world. Rockefeller Foundation,
UNISDR, 2015. Making Development Sustainable: The Future of Disaster Risk
New York, USA.
Management, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR).
Galbusera, L., Giannopoulos, G., 2018. On input-output economic models in disaster
Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, United
impact assessment. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 30, 186–198.
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.
Hall, R.E., Jones, C.I., 1999. Why Do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output per
Wang, Yafei, 2017. An industrial ecology virtual framework for policy making in China.
Worker than Others? The Quarterly Journal of Economics 114 (1), 83–116.
Econ Syst Res 29 (2), 252–274.
Hallegatte, S., 2014a. Economic Resilience: Definition and Measurement. Policy
WU, Jidong, LI, Ning, SHI, Peijun, 2014. Benchmark wealth capital stock estimations
Research Working Paper of the World Bank. 6852, 1–46.
across China’s 344 prefectures: 1978 to 2012. China Economic Review 31, 288–302.
Hallegatte, S., 2014b. Modeling the Role of Inventories and Heterogeneity in the
Xia, Yang, Li, Yuan, Guan, Dabo, Tinoco, David Mendoza, Xia, Jiangjiang,
Assessment of the Economic Costs of Natural Disasters. Risk Anal 34 (1), 152–167.
Yan, Zhongwei, Yang, Jun, Liu, Qiyong, Huo, Hong, 2018. Assessment of the
IPCC, 2014. Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II
economic impacts of heat waves: A case study of Nanjing. China J Clean Prod 171,
and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
811–819.
Change, in: Team, R.K.P.a.L.A.M. (Ed.). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Xie, Wei, Rose, Adam, Li, Shantong, He, Jianwu, Li, Ning, Ali, Tariq, 2018. Dynamic
Geneva, Switzerland.
Economic Resilience and Economic Recovery from Disasters: A Quantitative
Jonkeren, O., Giannopoulos, G., 2014. Analysing Critical Infrastructure Failure with a
Assessment. Risk Anal 38 (6), 1306–1318.
Resilience Inoperability Input-Output Model. Econ Syst Res 26 (1), 39–59.
Zhang, Zhengtao, Li, Ning, Cui, Peng, Xu, Hong, Liu, Yuan, Chen, Xi, Feng, Jieling, 2019.
Peter, K., Sebastian, P., Stefan, T., 2019. Quantifying economic resilience from input-
How to Integrate Labor Disruption into an Economic Impact Evaluation Model for
output susceptibility to improve predictions of economic growth and recovery.
Postdisaster Recovery Periods. Risk Anal 39 (11), 2443–2456.
Nature Communications 10, 1–9.
McMichael, A.J., Woodruff, R.E., Hales, S., 2006. Climate change and human health:
present and future risks. The Lancet 367 (9513), 859–869.

10