Advertisement

Environmental Economics and Policy Studies

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 37–60 | Cite as

Natural disaster mitigation through voluntary donations in a developing country: the case of Bangladesh

  • Shibly Shahrier
  • Koji KotaniEmail author
Research Article
  • 94 Downloads

Abstract

This paper addresses voluntary donations in Bangladesh with a specific eye on natural disaster mitigation. We conducted a questionnaire survey of 1000 respondents in which labor and money donations to collective disaster mitigation were elicited. We characterize labor and money donations in relation to socioeconomic variables such as income, education, family structure, and occupation using bivariate probit and Tobit regressions. The analysis finds that age, family structure, education, income and occupation are important determinants for Bangladeshi people to decide between labor and money donations as well as their respective amount. The poor and less educated households with high natural resource dependence are identified to significantly contribute to overall donations via labor. The rich and more educated people with low natural resource dependence are willing to donate money and little labor, but the magnitude of donations is small. Labor and money donations exhibit the relation of substitutability with respect to most socioeconomic variables. Education and income do not positively affect overall donations in Bangladesh. This finding is in sharp contrast with the studies in USA or Europe, and illustrates that labor donation is an important channel to natural disaster mitigation that should be utilized for public betterment in developing countries.

Keywords

Labor donation Natural disaster mitigation Developing country 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the anonymous referees, Makoto Kakinaka, Hiroaki Miyamoto and Raja Timilsina for their helpful comments, advice and support. The authors are also grateful to the various supports from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science as the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research B (16H03621), BRAC University and Kochi University of Technology.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We do not have any conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alberini A, Kahn JR (eds) (2009) Handbook on contingent valuation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali A (1996) Vulnerability of Bangladesh to climate change and sea level rise through tropical cyclones and storm surges. Water Air Soil Pollut 92:171–179Google Scholar
  3. Andreoni J (2006) Philanthropy, chapter 18. In: Kolm S, Ythier J (eds) Handbook of giving, reciprocity and altruism, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1201–1269Google Scholar
  4. Balisteri E, McClelland G, Poe G, Schulze W (2001) Can hypothetical questions reveal true values? A laboratory comparison of dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent values with auction values. Environ Resour Econ 18:275–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (2011) District statistics, KhulnaGoogle Scholar
  6. Bangladesh Water Development Board (2013) Resettlement action plan, vol IIGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer TK, Bredtmann J, Schmidt CM (2013) Time vs. money—the supply of voluntary labor and chritatable donations across Europe. Eur J Polit Econ 32:80–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beldad A, Gosselt J, Hegner S, Leuhuis R (2015) Generous but not morally obliged? Determinants of Dutch and American donars’ repeat donation intention (REPDON). Voluntas 26:442–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown E, Lankford H (1992) Gifts of money and gifts of time: estimating the effects of tax prices and available time. J Public Econ 47:321–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cappellari L, Ghinetti P, Turati G (2011) On time and money donations. J Socioecon 40:853–867Google Scholar
  11. Carson RT, Mitchell RC, Hanemann M, Kopp RJ, Presser S, Ruud PA (2003) Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ Resour Econ 25:257–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooper P, Poe GL, Bateman IJ (2004) The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement. Ecol Econ 50:69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Das S, Vincent JR (2009) Mangroves protected villages and reduced death toll during Indian super cyclone. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:7357–7360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dasgupta S, Huq M, Khan ZH, Ahmed MM, Mukherjee N, Khan MF, Pandey K (2010) Vulnerability of Bangladesh to cyclones in a changing climate: potential damages and adaptation cost. Policy research working paper 5280Google Scholar
  15. Dorcey AHJ, McDaniels T (2001) Great expectations, mixed results: trends in citizen involvement in Canadian environmental performance. In Governing the environment. Toronto University Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  16. Duncan B (1999) Modeling charitable contributions of time and money. J Public Econ 72:213–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Emanuel K (2005) Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436:686–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feldman NE (2010) Time is money: choosing between chartitable activities. Am Econ J 2:103–130Google Scholar
  19. Fiorillo D (2009) Volunteer labour supply: micro-econometric evidence from Italy, chapter 10. In: Musella M, Destefanis S (eds) Paid and unpaid labour in the social economy. An international perspective. AIEL, pp 165–181Google Scholar
  20. Freeman RB (1997) Working for nothing: the supply of volunteer labor. J Labor Econ 15:140–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gedan KB, Kirwan ML, Wolanski E, Barbier EB, Silliman BR (2011) The present and future role of coastal wetland vegetation in protecting shorelines. Clim change 106:7–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ghanbarpour M, Saravi MM, Salimi S (2014) Floodplain inundation analysis combined with contingent valuation: implications for sustainable flood risk management. Water Resour Manag 28:2491–2505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Godschalk DR, Bordy S, Burby R (2003) Public participation in natural hazard mitigation policy formation: challenges for comprehensive planning. J Environ Plan Manag 46:733–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Government of Bangladesh (2010) National plan for disaster management 2010–2015. Technical report. Government of Bangladesh, BangladeshGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamed A, Madani K, Holle BV, Wright L, Milon JW, Bossick M (2016) How much are Floridians willing to pay for protecting sea turtles from sea level rise? Environ Manag 57:176–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A (2010) The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci 33:61–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Himelein K, Eckman S, Murray S (2013) The use of random geographic cluster sampling to survey pastoralists. World Bank policy research working paper 6589Google Scholar
  28. Himelein K, Eckman S, Murray S (2014) Sampling nomads: a new technique for remote, hard-to-reach and mobile population. J Off Stat 30:191–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Islam M, Kotani K, Managi S (2016) Climate perception and flood mitigation cooperation: a Bangladesh case study. Econ Anal Policy 49:117–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khanal U, Wilson C, Managi S, Lee B, Hoang V-N, Gifford R (2018) Psychological influence on survey incentives: valuing climate change adaptation benefits in agriculture. Environ Econ Policy Stud 20:305–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kotani K, Tanaka K, Managi S (2014) Cooperative choice and its framing effect under threshold uncertainty in a provision point mechanism. Econ Gov 15:329–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumar U, Baten MA, Masud AA, Osman KS, Rahman M (2010) Cyclone AILA: one year on natural disaster to human sufferings. Technical report, Unnayan OnneshanGoogle Scholar
  33. Luo X, Levi AE (2013) Factors influencing willingness to participate in disaster reduction. Nat Hazards 66:1243–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Markantonis V, Meyer V, Lienhoop N (2013) Evaluation of the environmental impacts of extreme floods in the Evros river basin using contingent valuation method. Nat Hazards 69:1535–1549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin-Ortega J, Brouwer R, Aiking H (2011) Application of a value-based equivalency method to assess environmental damage compensation under the European environmental liability directive. J Environ Manag 92:1461–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Menchik PL, Weisbrod BA (1987) Volunteer labor supply. J Public Econ 32:159–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mileti D (1999) Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1988) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. RFF Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. Munro A, Managi S (2017) Going back: radiation and intentions to return amongst households evacuated after the great Tohoku earthquake. Econ Disasters Clim Change 1:77–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pearce L (2003) Disaster management and community planning and public participation: how to achieve sustainable hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards 28:211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Proufoun JN, Abildtrup J, Delacote P (2016) The value of endangered forest elephants to local communities in a transboundary conservation landscape. Ecol Econ 126:70–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rajapaksa D, Athukorala W, Managi S, Neelawala P, Lee B, Hoang V-N, Wilson C (2018) The impact of cell phone towers on house prices: evidence from Brisbane, Australia. Environ Econ Policy Stud 20:211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schiermeier Q (2011a) Climate and weather: extreme measures. Nature 477:148–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schiermeier Q (2011b) Increased flood risk linked to global warming. Nature 470:316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shaha PS (2014) The cost of drinking water in the coast is even higher than that of Dhaka city. Daily Prothom Alo (in Bengali) Google Scholar
  46. Spalding MD, Ruffo S, Lacambra C, Meliane I, Hale LZ, Shepard CC, Beck MW (2014) The role of ecosystems in coastal protection: adapting to climate change and coastal hazards. Ocean Coast Manag 90:50–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sun C, Yuan X, Xu M (2016) The public perceptions and willingness to pay: from the perspective of the smog crisis in China. J Clean Prod 112:1635–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sutton-Grier AE, Wowk K, Bamford H (2015) Future of our coasts: the potential for natural and hybrid infrastructure to enhance the resilience of our coastal communities, economies and ecosystems. Environ Sci Policy 51:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tanaka K, Kurakawa Y, Sawada E, Akao K, Managi S (2017) Energy conservation and risk of electric outage: laboratory experimental study. J Energy Eng 143:F4016010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. United Nation (2010) Cyclone AILA: Joint UN mutlisector assessment and response framework. Technical report, United NationGoogle Scholar
  51. United Nations Development Program (2009) Field visit report on selected AILA affected areas. Technical report, United Nations Development ProgramGoogle Scholar
  52. Verbic M, Slabe-Erker R, Klun M (2016) Contingent valuation of urban public space: a case study of Ljubljanica riverbanks. Land Use Policy 56:58–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wiepking P (ed) (2009) The state of giving research in Europe. Pallas publicationGoogle Scholar
  54. Wiepking P, Bekkers RH, Osili UO (2014) Examining the association of religious context with giving to non-profit organizations. Eur Soc Rev 30:640–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilhelm MO, Brown E, Rooney PM, Steinberg R (2008) The intergenerational transmission of generosity. J Public Econ 92:2146–2156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wright K (2001) Generosity vs. altruism: philanthropy and charity in the United States and United Kingdom. Voluntas 12:399–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Social SciencesBRAC UniversityDhakaBangladesh
  2. 2.School of Economics and ManagementKochi University of TechnologyKochiJapan
  3. 3.Research Institute for Future DesignKochi University of TechnologyKochiJapan
  4. 4.Urban InstituteKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  5. 5.College of Business, Rikkyo UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations