IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jda/journl/vol.53year2019issue4pp57-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comprehensive Evaluation of Flood Defense Projects and Productivity Potential Issues

Author

Listed:
  • Abdur Rouf

    (Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh)

Abstract

Flood defense (FD) projects are often evaluated from an engineering perspective in terms of flood frequency/flood risk assessment overlooking the productivity potential of the projects from an economic perspective. This is a limitation of the conventional assessment of flood defense projects that productivity potentials are not considered when they are evaluated. Although it is an established fact, FD projects affect the productivity of the production units/farms with them. Modified hydrological conditions of the production environments under the FD projects primarily bring about the changes in farm productivity. Hence, evaluation of FD projects without considering their productivity potential would provide a ‘partial assessment’ and it leaves room for polarization among stakeholders. This paper, however, addresses this limitation by evaluating FD projects form an economic perspective where productivity potentials of the FD schemes are taken into consideration. Two distinct indicators of productivity e.g., ‘technical efficiency’ and ‘yield-gap’ are used here. Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA) is engaged to estimate technical efficiency while a standard formula (developed by a synthesis between the ideas of ‘efficiency gap’ and ‘potential yield’) is used to measure yield-gap. This empirical study considers two contrasting FD projects, namely, the traditional flood defense (TFD) and the natural flood defense (NFD), implemented in the Southwest coastal zone of Bangladesh. These projects are evaluated with respect to rice production and the study results reveal that mean scores of technical efficiency for the TFD and NFD projects are respectively 0.78 and 0.76 while average yield-gaps are 719.18 and 807.33 in order. Again, ‘yield-gap ratio’ and the difference between the ‘potential yield increments’ are 1.12 and 2.84 respectively. These findings indicate that TFD project outperforms the NFD project marginally with respect to their productivity potentials. However, assessment of FD projects from engineering and economic perspectives provides a comprehensive evaluation which can resolve or at least attenuate the debate (if any) over the appropriateness of alternative projects and thereby prevents unnecessary delay in project implementation which has economic and policy implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Abdur Rouf, 2019. "Comprehensive Evaluation of Flood Defense Projects and Productivity Potential Issues," Journal of Developing Areas, Tennessee State University, College of Business, vol. 53(4), pages 57-70, Fall.
  • Handle: RePEc:jda:journl:vol.53:year:2019:issue4:pp57-70
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/718409/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Performance evaluation; Economic perspective; Flood Defense; Technical Efficiency; Yield-Gap; Potential Yield Increment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C10 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - General
    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • Q00 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jda:journl:vol.53:year:2019:issue4:pp57-70. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Abu N.M. Wahid (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cbtnsus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.