The value of flood risk reduction in selected communities near the pulangui river in bukidnon, Philippines

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/03/2015
Views (178) Download (5)

The value of flood risk reduction in selected communities near the pulangui river in bukidnon, Philippines

Michael Arieh P. Medina and Jocereal G. Arche
J. Bio. Env. Sci.6( 3), 84-90, March 2015.
Certificate: JBES 2015 [Generate Certificate]


To estimate the economic value of the benefits of a structural flood prevention program in flood prone areas near the Pulangui River in Bukidnon, Philippines, a contingent valuation study using the willingness to contribute labor (WTCL) format was conducted. The study also explored the socio-demographic determinants of WTCL in order to determine the factors influencing the residents’ future contribution of voluntary labor in a flood prevention project. A survey was conducted in three flood prone barangays in the province of Bukidnon namely: Batangan, Valencia City; Dologon, Maramag; and Camp 1, Maramag. A bidding game procedure was employed to reveal their WTCL. The results showed that the respondents are willing to contribute an average of 10.02 man days of labor in a flood prevention program per year. Interestingly, this is greatly higher than results from similar studies abroad. Consequently, the economic value of the benefits of residents from a structural flood prevention project is estimated at around PHP 3M per year based on the minimum daily wage rate. Using multiple linear regression, gender and poverty revealed significant influences on the respondents’ WTCL. Male respondents and those with higher income are more likely to contribute labor than those of the opposite gender and income class.


Bankoff G. 2003. Constructing vulnerability: the historical, natural and social generation of flooding in metropolitan Manila. Disasters, 27(3), 224-238.

Brouwer  R,  Akter  S,  Brander  L,  Haque  E. 2009. Economic valuation of flood risk exposure and reduction in a severely flood prone developing country. Environment and Development Economics, 14(03), 397-417.

Carson RT. 2012. Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren’t available. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 27-42.

Casey JF. 2003. Partners In Forest Conservation:” Willingness-To_Work”(WTW) To Protect Local Forest Resources in Calakmul, Campeche, Mexico. Problemas Del Dessarrollo: Revista Latinoamericana De Economis, 34(135), 126-142.

Delica-Willson Z. 2005. Community-based disaster risk management: Local level solutions to disaster risks. Tropical Coasts, 12(1), 66-73.

Dzialek J, Biernacki W, Bokwa A. 2013. Impact of Social Capital on Local Communities’ Response to Floods in Southern Poland. Community, Environment and Disaster Risk Management, 14, 185-205.

Hsieh LS, Hsu MH, Li MH. 2006. An assessment of structural measures for flood-prone lowlands with high population density along the Keelung River in Taiwan. Natural Hazards, 37(1-2), 133-152.

Irvin RA, Stansbury J. 2004. Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort?. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55-65.

Jolejole PCB, Briones ND. 2010. Willingness-to-Pay and Perceptions of Resort Owners and Tourists/Scubadivers on Coral Reefs in Verde Passage, Batangas Province, Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 13(1), 27-34.

Kick EL, Fraser JC, Fulkerson GM, McKinney LA, De Vries DH. 2011. Repetitive flood victims and acceptance of FEMA mitigation offers: an analysis with community–system policy implications. Disasters, 35(3), 510-539.

Kundzewicz ZW, Takeuchi K. 1999. Flood protection and management: quo vadimus?. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 44(3), 417-432.

Lankia T, Neuvonen M, Pouta E, Sievänen T. 2014. Willingness to contribute to the management of recreational quality on private lands in Finland. Journal of Forest Economics, 20(2), 141-160.

Laska SB. 1986. Involving homeowners in flood mitigation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 52(4), 452-466.

Lin S, Shaw D, Ho MC. 2008. Why are flood and landslide victims less willing to take mitigation measures than the public?. Natural Hazards, 44(2), 305-314.

Manlosa AO, Briones ND, Alcantara AJ, Florece LM. 2013. Willingness to Pay for Conserving Layawan Watershed for Domestic Water Supply in Oroquieta City, Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 16(2), 1-10.

Montz BE, Gruntfest E. 2002. Flash flood mitigation: recommendations for research and applications. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 4(1), 15-22.

Navrud S, Tuan TH, Tinh BD. 2012. Estimating the welfare loss to households from natural disasters in developing countries: a contingent valuation study of flooding in Vietnam. Global Health Action, 5, 17609.

Reynaud A, Nguyen MH. 2013. Valuing Flood Risk Reductions (Working paper VCREME WP-01-2013). Retrieved from: VCREME website: WP-01-2013-Arnaud-Hung.pdf [January 5, 2015]

Schiappacasse I, Vásquez F, Nahuelhual L, Echeverría C. 2013. Labor as a welfare measure in contingent valuation: the value of a forest restoration project. Ciencia e Investigación Agraria, 40(1), 69-84.

Shabman L, Stephenson K, Thunberg E, Dietz B, Driscoll P, O’Grady K. 1998. Comparing benefit estimation techniques: residential flood hazard reduction benefits in Roanoke, Virginia (No. IWR-98-R-2). Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources Fort Belvoir VA.

Shaw R. 2006. Critical issues of community based flood mitigation: examples from Bangladesh and Vietnam. Science and Culture, 72(1/2), 62.

Subade RF, Francisco HA. 2014. Do non-users value coral reefs?: Economic valuation of conserving Tubbataha Reefs, Philippines. Ecological Economics, 102(2014), 24-32.

Tilahun M, Mathijs E, Muys B, Vranken L, Deckers J, Gebregziabher K, Gebrehiwot K, and Bauer H. 2011. Contingent valuation analysis of rural households’ willingness to pay for frankincense forest conservation. In 2011 International Congress, Zurich, Switzerland.: European Association of Agricultural Economists.

Ureta JCP, Lasco RD, Sajise AJU, Calderon MM. 2014. Oroquieta City Households’ Willingness to Pay for Coastal Biodiversity Conservation. Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(5), 82-92.