Estimating the welfare loss to households from natural disasters in developing countries: a contingent valuation study of flooding in Vietnam

Figures & data

Fig. 1.  Frequency of floods per decade in Vietnam 1955–2009. (Source: CRED-EMDAT, 2010 (7)).

Fig. 2.  Map of Quang Nam Province (Source: google.nl/image)

Table 1. Characteristics of the respondents and their household (N=706 households)

Characteristics	Description	Result
Gender (%)	Male	75.5
	Female	24.5
Age (years)	Mean	51
	Minimum	22
	Maximum	85
Years of schooling (%)	Never attended school	20
	Did not complete primary school	38
	Graduated primary school	20
	Graduated senior high school	9
Household members (No.)	No. of household members (mean)	4.1
	Working members (%)	66.6
	Children<15 years (%)	24.0
	Members>60 years (%)	9.4
House type (%)	Permanent	26
	Semi-permanent	61
	Not permanent	13
Area size of agricultural land (m^2)	Median	1,667
	Minimum	0
	Maximum	15,000
Income per household per year (VND); 1 US$=19,000 VND	Average (SD)	19,139,158 (14,857,376)
Percentage of very poor households (%)	Income less than 7 million VND/year	22.7
Main household income source (%)	Agriculture	56
	Industry	3
	Services	3
	Other (interest, remittance, etc.)	38

Table 2. Results from WTC question 1: ‘The government is now considering implementing a flood prevention plan, and the plan is financed by government. Would you be willing to contribute labour to that program?’ (N=706)

WTC	N	Percent
Yes	617	87.4
No	71	10.1
Don't know or did not answer	18	2.5
Total	706	100.0

Table 3. The most important reason why respondents were not willing-to-contribute (WTC) labour to the flood protection program (N=89)

Reasons	N	Percentage
1. I cannot afford to participate	42	48
2. Other things are more important than avoiding floods	3	3
3. I do not believe that the government will implement this plan	1	1
4. I do not believe I am at risk of being flooded	2	2
5. Other reasons (23) – old age (7), lack of labour (6), weak health (6), no time (2), small children (2)	23	26
6. Do not know or no answer	18	20
Total	89	100

Table 4. The most important reason why respondents would be willing to contribute (WTC) labour to the flood protection program (N=617)

Reasons	N	Percentage
1. For my household's benefits	230	37
2. For other people in this area	178	29
3. It is a good thing to do	164	27
4. I think this cost is reasonable	22	3
5. Others	23	4
Total	617	100

Table 5. Tobit regressions of willingness-to-contribute (WTC) labour for flood protection programs. *, **, and *** means significantly different from zero at the 10, 5, and 1% levels, respectively

Variables	Description of variables	Mean value	Regression coefficients
WTC	WTC labour to flood prevention program (person-days)	6.73
Constant		–	3.793*
Gender	Gender of respondent (male=1; female=0)	0.75	−0.373
Age	Age of respondent (years)	51.34	−0.026
Education	Level of education (from 1=not completed elementary school to 8=graduated from university)	2.98	0.135
Income	Total household income per year (million VND)	19.14	0.061***
Flood experience	No. of floods that household experienced (number of floods)	0.74	0.412**
Flood protection	If households acted upon warning message (yes=1, 0 otherwise)	0.96	0.571
Labour	Availability of labour (no. of labourers per household)	2.72	0. 678***
Flood damage	Total damage due to flood (million VND)	3.82	0.008
Flood level	If household located in flooded villages (flooded=1, less flooded=0)	0.74	0.725***
Log likelihood		−1408.80
N		458

Table 6. Economic damage cost (in VND) per household due to the 2007 floods

Type of damage	Min	Max	Mean	%
Damage to crops	0	41,000,000	983,423	25.8
Damage to livestock	0	26,000,000	849,646	22.3
Damage to aquaculture	0	45,000,000	160,765	4.2
Damage to family-based industry and service	0	830,000	6884	0.2
Damage to house	0	81,900,000	1,492,152	39.1
Damage to family goods	0	8,550,000	117,625	3.1
Damage to house due to public infrastructure	0	25,130,000	207,599	5.4
Total damage	0	83,740,000	3,816,105	100.0