Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Economics and Policy Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We also elicited risk perception to climate from the respondents in our survey following Ghanbarpouret al. (2014), but most of them simply answered “high risk perception” which do not show enough variation to be included in the analysis. Therefore, we did not include them in statistical analysis. Here, we report that almost all respondents perceive natural disaster and climatic changes as high risk for their life.

  2. There are some previous works to experimentally study not only perceptions but also cooperative behaviors under various risks and uncertainty, considering the context of climate change (see, e.g., Kotani et al. 2014; Tanaka et al. 2017). However, the issues of perception to climate risks and uncertainty are out of scope in this paper.

  3. There are several arguments about possible countermeasures and controls against disasters and climate change. Some authors claim an importance of constructing infrastructures that are robust against disasters and climate change such as strong bank and cell phone towers (see, e.g., Rajapaksa et al. 2018.)

  4. Upazila is the second lowest administrative unit in Bangladesh.

  5. “Shrimp-gher” indicates a special pond and the associated occupation for shrimp cultivation in the coastal regions of Bangladesh.

  6. A union is the lowest administrative unit in Bangladesh.

  7. We find that more than 95% of respondents uniformly exhibit “high risk perception to natural disasters and climatic changes”. There is not enough variation in the variable of risk perception to be included in the statistical analysis.

  8. We use the command “c.income##c.income” in Stata 13 to incorporate the nonlinear effect of income on dependent variable both for bivariate probit and Tobit regression. Furthermore, in our regression, we include both occupation and fixed occupation dummy variable because temporary and fixed occupation households are mixed up due to special structures of a labor market in the study region. For instance, many businessmen fall in the category of temporary occupation since their business is a seasonal business. On the other hand, many of the semi-skilled day laborers are considered in the “fixed occupation” category because they sell their physical labor in a specific sector such as shrimp cultivation without seasonality.

  9. More specifically, the possible bias could have been upward. However, such an upward bias (i.e., concerns for overestimation) for labor donations and money donations shall not be a serious concern in this research, because reported values of labor donations and money donations elicited especially from poor people appear to be quite plausible and understandable on the basis of their daily lifestyles and price levels in that region.

References

  • Alberini A, Kahn JR (eds) (2009) Handbook on contingent valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

  • Ali A (1996) Vulnerability of Bangladesh to climate change and sea level rise through tropical cyclones and storm surges. Water Air Soil Pollut 92:171–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni J (2006) Philanthropy, chapter 18. In: Kolm S, Ythier J (eds) Handbook of giving, reciprocity and altruism, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1201–1269

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 18:275–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (2011) District statistics, Khulna

  • Bangladesh Water Development Board (2013) Resettlement action plan, vol II

  • Bauer TK, Bredtmann J, Schmidt CM (2013) Time vs. money—the supply of voluntary labor and chritatable donations across Europe. Eur J Polit Econ 32:80–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 26:442–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown E, Lankford H (1992) Gifts of money and gifts of time: estimating the effects of tax prices and available time. J Public Econ 47:321–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappellari L, Ghinetti P, Turati G (2011) On time and money donations. J Socioecon 40:853–867

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 25:257–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper P, Poe GL, Bateman IJ (2004) The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement. Ecol Econ 50:69–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das S, Vincent JR (2009) Mangroves protected villages and reduced death toll during Indian super cyclone. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:7357–7360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 5280

  • Dorcey AHJ, McDaniels T (2001) Great expectations, mixed results: trends in citizen involvement in Canadian environmental performance. In Governing the environment. Toronto University Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan B (1999) Modeling charitable contributions of time and money. J Public Econ 72:213–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel K (2005) Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436:686–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman NE (2010) Time is money: choosing between chartitable activities. Am Econ J 2:103–130

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 165–181

  • Freeman RB (1997) Working for nothing: the supply of volunteer labor. J Labor Econ 15:140–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 106:7–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghanbarpour M, Saravi MM, Salimi S (2014) Floodplain inundation analysis combined with contingent valuation: implications for sustainable flood risk management. Water Resour Manag 28:2491–2505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godschalk DR, Bordy S, Burby R (2003) Public participation in natural hazard mitigation policy formation: challenges for comprehensive planning. J Environ Plan Manag 46:733–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of Bangladesh (2010) National plan for disaster management 2010–2015. Technical report. Government of Bangladesh, Bangladesh

  • 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 57:176–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A (2010) The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci 33:61–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himelein K, Eckman S, Murray S (2013) The use of random geographic cluster sampling to survey pastoralists. World Bank policy research working paper 6589

  • Himelein K, Eckman S, Murray S (2014) Sampling nomads: a new technique for remote, hard-to-reach and mobile population. J Off Stat 30:191–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Islam M, Kotani K, Managi S (2016) Climate perception and flood mitigation cooperation: a Bangladesh case study. Econ Anal Policy 49:117–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 20:305–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotani K, Tanaka K, Managi S (2014) Cooperative choice and its framing effect under threshold uncertainty in a provision point mechanism. Econ Gov 15:329–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar U, Baten MA, Masud AA, Osman KS, Rahman M (2010) Cyclone AILA: one year on natural disaster to human sufferings. Technical report, Unnayan Onneshan

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo X, Levi AE (2013) Factors influencing willingness to participate in disaster reduction. Nat Hazards 66:1243–1255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 69:1535–1549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 92:1461–1470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menchik PL, Weisbrod BA (1987) Volunteer labor supply. J Public Econ 32:159–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mileti D (1999) Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press, Washington

  • Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1988) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. RFF Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro A, Managi S (2017) Going back: radiation and intentions to return amongst households evacuated after the great Tohoku earthquake. Econ Disasters Clim Change 1:77–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce L (2003) Disaster management and community planning and public participation: how to achieve sustainable hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards 28:211–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proufoun JN, Abildtrup J, Delacote P (2016) The value of endangered forest elephants to local communities in a transboundary conservation landscape. Ecol Econ 126:70–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 20:211–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiermeier Q (2011a) Climate and weather: extreme measures. Nature 477:148–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiermeier Q (2011b) Increased flood risk linked to global warming. Nature 470:316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaha PS (2014) The cost of drinking water in the coast is even higher than that of Dhaka city. Daily Prothom Alo (in Bengali)

  • 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 90:50–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 112:1635–1644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 51:137–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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:F4016010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nation (2010) Cyclone AILA: Joint UN mutlisector assessment and response framework. Technical report, United Nation

  • United Nations Development Program (2009) Field visit report on selected AILA affected areas. Technical report, United Nations Development Program

  • Verbic M, Slabe-Erker R, Klun M (2016) Contingent valuation of urban public space: a case study of Ljubljanica riverbanks. Land Use Policy 56:58–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiepking P (ed) (2009) The state of giving research in Europe. Pallas publication

  • Wiepking P, Bekkers RH, Osili UO (2014) Examining the association of religious context with giving to non-profit organizations. Eur Soc Rev 30:640–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm MO, Brown E, Rooney PM, Steinberg R (2008) The intergenerational transmission of generosity. J Public Econ 92:2146–2156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright K (2001) Generosity vs. altruism: philanthropy and charity in the United States and United Kingdom. Voluntas 12:399–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Social Sciences, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh

    Shibly Shahrier

  2. School of Economics and Management, Kochi University of Technology, Kochi, Japan

    Koji Kotani

  3. Research Institute for Future Design, Kochi University of Technology, Kochi, Japan

    Koji Kotani

  4. Urban Institute, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Koji Kotani

  5. College of Business, Rikkyo University, Tokyo, Japan

    Koji Kotani

Authors
  1. Shibly Shahrier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Koji Kotani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koji Kotani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We do not have any conflict of interest.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shahrier, S., Kotani, K. Natural disaster mitigation through voluntary donations in a developing country: the case of Bangladesh. Environ Econ Policy Stud 21, 37–60 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-018-0221-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-018-0221-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation