1.

Project Summary
A. Title: Does the Comprehensive Adaptation Strategy Better Secure the Local Livelihoods?
A Quasi Experimental Study of the Comprehensive Disaster Management Program in the
Coastal Region of Bangladesh
B. Principal Investigator: Mohammad Ashraful Haque, Assistant Professor, Department of
Public Administration, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka 1342
Phone# +88-01913973321; email: haqash.01@gmail.com
C. Institutional Affiliation: Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh
D. Date of Proposal: Proposal Submission-16/2/2014; Duration- 01/07/2014 28/02/2016
E. Amount & Duration: USD 21,000; 20 Months

F. Summary
Bangladesh Government started implementing the Comprehensive Disaster
Management Program (CDMP) in 2006 in order to mitigate the adverse impacts of the
climate change on the livelihoods at the local level. In the past, the Governments main
approach was to implement disjointed ministry-wise disaster risk response programs. The
CDMP was conceptualized to encourage and institutionalize community driven
adaptation measures with special focus on securing the livelihoods in the face of
increased threat of climate change related adversities. The coastal areas of Bangladesh are
identified as the most vulnerable to climate change related adversities, especially from
cyclones, tidal surge, and salinity intrusion.
In this study, I will try to measure the impact of the CDMP in securing the livelihoods
of the local communities of the coastal areas. Household income and household unit asset
value have taken as the proxy measures of livelihood security. Two neighboring sub-
districts of Khulna district, Dacope and Koyra, are selected as the study area for this quasi
experiment. The scoio-economic profiles and the climate change risks of the two sub-
districts are comparable. Both sub-districts implement traditional ministry-wise
development activities. However, Dacope has implemented CDMP components, but
Koyra has not. I will therefore measure the change in the value of the four variables of
interest in the two sub-districts after controlling for some confounding variables that may
influence my variables of interests. The difference-in-differences regression will be taken
as the empirical strategy. Assuming similar trend in the four variables of interest would
have happened without CDMP, any positive jump in the value of the variables for Dacope
may be attributed to the CDMP. The impact will then be decomposed by the three
implementation modalities, i.e. by the government alone, by NGOs/CBOs alone, and by
both; and by socio-economic profiles of the beneficiaries.

2. Project Description
A. Research Problem
Bangladesh being a country with high population density and poverty incidence,
adaptation to climate change adversaries may be the most economic option to reducing the
risk to lives and livelihoods. Within the country, the low lying coastal zones (on average 1
meter from the sea level) have been identified as the most vulnerable to climate change,
especially for the loss of lives and livelihoods due to cyclones, tidal surge, salinity intrusion,
and waterlogging (World Bank, 2000 and 2010). When averaged over the past decade, the
direct annual costs from natural disasters in the coastal zonein terms of damages to
infrastructure and livelihoods and losses from forgone production have been estimated at
0.5 percent to 1 percent of GDP (World Bank, 2010). In response to this high impact
situation, Bangladesh government has framed the National Adaptation Program of Action
(NAPA) in 2005, which identified 15 priority activities that were subsequently updated to 45
programs in 2009. The first sectoral policy to explicitly include climate change impacts and
actionsthe Coastal Zone Policy was adopted in 2005 that emphasized on the structural
adaptation. Later in the same year, the government formulated the Comprehensive Disaster
Management Program to initiate community based structural and non-structural adaptation
for securing the livelihoods at the local level. In the first phase of CDMP (2006-2009), some
districts from the south western coastal zone and north western high Barind tracts were
included. Later, the government adopted Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action
Plan 2009 that further enhanced the scope of CDMP (2010-14) to include other areas of the
country. The government spent USD 230 million till 2011 in the CDMP.
Three types of adaptations have been incorporated in the CDMP: direct livelihood
adaptation in agriculture, livestock and fisheries, indirect protection of livelihoods by
infrastructural adaptation, and community based disaster risk reduction. Three different
implementation modalities, i.e. by the government agencies alone, by the NGOs/CBOs, by
the both, have been administered for each type of adaptations.
Being constrained by extremely limited resources, the policy makers need to identify
the most efficient adaptation strategy and implementation modality so that they can maximize
the effect size of the program. They should also make sure that the benefits of these
adaptation measures go to the most vulnerable livelihood groups. No systematic study has
been conducted thus far to assess the impact of the livelihood protection measures,
differentiate the best implementation modality for a particular adaptation strategy, and to
differentiate the effect size across the vulnerable social groups.
This research may provide estimates of the aggregate effect size of the adaption
measures at the sub-district level, disaggregated effect size on different vulnerable groups, the
variation in the effect size based on the three variants of the implementation modes, and the
factors that influence the choice of a specific adaptation measure. The policy makers may use
this information to revise their implementation policies to better target the beneficiary groups
for a greater impact.

B. Study Goals
This research intends to measure the effect of the CDMP adaptation measures in
coastal areas of Bangladesh. Major objectives include:
1. Estimate the aggregate effect size of a particular adaptation strategy on the livelihood
security at the sub-district level of the coastal area;
2. Estimate the variation in the effect size of a particular adaptation strategy for different
vulnerable groups in coastal areas;
3. Estimate the variation in the effect size of a particular adaptation strategy based on the
implementation modes, i.e. government, NGOs/CBOs, and the both.

C. Literature Review

C1: Quasi Experimental Approach in Climate Change Evaluation Research
Though quasi experimental approach is popular in program impact evaluation, it is
not widely used thus far in evaluating climate change adaptation programs. Greenstone and
Gayer (2009) argues that the use of quasi-experimental and experimental methods can largely
improve the quality of evidence of environmental programs by better explaining the
exogenous variation in the variable of interests. They also argue that mere associational
evidence should not lead taking causal inference regarding the impact of environmental
programs, which were often the case. Among papers that used quasi-experimental approach
to evaluate the impact of the climate change adaptation intervention, Uchida et al. (2007) is
particularly noteworthy. This paper studies the impact of the Chinas Grain for Green
program, on poverty alleviation in rural areas. Based on a large-scale survey, they found that
income from livestock activities and some types of asset holdings (outcome variables) of
participants have increased significantly more than those of non-participants (due to program
effects). They applied a difference-in-differences estimation method that also controls for
some socio-economic variables such as household size, age of the household age, education
of the household head, distance from the nearest road, number of migrant family members,
value of house, etc., they thought might affect the outcome variables.
Andam et al. (2008), Gaveau et al. (2009) and Sims (2008) administered matching
techniques to construct valid counterfactuals for measuring the impact of protected areas on
avoided deforestation. Sims study is quite interesting that uses matching and regression
techniques to estimate the impact of the protected areas on poverty indicators. The analysis
shows an increase in consumption and a reduction in poverty for those with land in the
protected area, although the distributional impacts of the protected areas may not be even.
Pfaff et al. (2008) and Robalino et al. (2008) use both covariate and propensity score
matching techniques to estimate the programs impact on avoided deforestation. Edmonds
(2002) employed a pipeline approach and instrumental variable analysis to evaluate the
impact of forest management by forest user groups in Nepal. He matched data from a census
of forest user groups in the Arun Valley with the location of communities included in a
Living Standards Measurement Survey data from the same area and estimated
impact on fuel wood collection.
Das and Smith (2012) also employed a difference-in-differences (DID) method to
identify the impact of Disaster Risk Management (DRM) program on the heat wave related
deaths. They differentiated districts into DRM and non-DRM and performed DID regression
after controlling for variables that may cause differential trend in the outcome variable
(number of deaths from heat wave) in DRM and non-DRM districts in the absence of the
program.

C2: Measurement of Livelihood Security
Care Bangladesh (2004) undertook a rigorous exercise to develop consistent and
measurable over time indicators for livelihood security. Among other indicators, household
income, savings, and assets were key indicators to measure the livelihood security.
Frankenberger et al. (2000), after extensively reviewing literature on the household livelihood
security concluded that any measures that can reflect the ability of a household to meet its
basic needs can be taken as livelihood security indicators. Indicators may include food
security, health security, secured shelter, and income security.

D. Research Methods
1. Theory
It is now a known fact that the climate change negatively affects all forms of existing
agricultural production. Therefore, climate change may affect the livelihood security of those
who depend on farming, fisheries and livestock for a living. Climate change induced disasters
may also badly affect infrastructure, human settlements, and health of the disaster affected
areas. Since the productivity and economic activities critically depend on these factors,
climate change induced disaster may affect the livelihood too (World Bank, 2010). For this
study, I take household income and household unit asset value as measures of livelihood
security. I expect that the CDMP area is more adapted to climate change and therefore have
either increased income as well as asset value, and decreased cost of adaptation than those of
the non-CDMP area, or has lower fluctuation in each of these variables in the CDMP area
after a disaster event that affected both the CDMP and non-CDMP area with similar intensity.

1.1 Variable Specification
Household income per capita is the first outcome variable. All income streams from
locally engaged economic activities will be taken into account. Remittance will only be added
to income if that taken place because of the treatment, i.e. CDMP program. Migration for
income can happen independent of the program too. Lets a household in an area s currently
has locally generated income from h (a vector consisting of agricultural and other locally fa
remittance income of r. Therefore the household income function in t period is:
I
t
= f
t
(s, h, r)
Over T period, this household has a discounted income function:
( )

t f
t
(s, h, r)

Now, due to the CDMP program, adaptation in h and r may happen. Suppose, after
adaptation, h becomes a new vector k in t=p such that 1<p<T. There may be some additional
remittance income r|t=p (caused by the program only). So, the new income discounted
income function will be:
(

t
f
t
(s, k, r, r|t=p)
The effect on a household income by for the program is:
W(s, h, k, r, r|t=p)= ( ) - (

)
Since s is the same (households of the same area, or the area that is a valid counterfactual of
the program area), I have:
W(s, h, k, r, r|t=p)= ( ) - (

)..1
Assuming the program and non-program area has similar trend in the outcome variable
should there be no program, the household income difference depends on the locally
generated income of the respective areas and the income from the program induced
remittance. If W>0, the program produces negative impact on the household income. If W<0,
the program has a positive impact. If W=0, the program has no impact. I also assume that the
distribution of k may be influenced by the implementation mode of the program and the
vulnerability profiles of the program beneficiaries.

Both h and k are the function of disaster event d at time q such that q>p, then:
( ) =
h
h ..2; and ( )=
k
k .3
Where 0<
h
,
k
<1
If
h
<
k
, k is less vulnerable to disaster event; if
h
>
k,
k is more vulnerable.

I define the second outcome variable, i.e. household unit asset value as the monetary
value of a unit land or house or other immovable properties. Lets take z the vector of non-
climatic factors that influence the utility of the asset, e.g., demand, productivity, distance
from the road, etc. Let assume that asset value is also influenced by a vector of climatic
factors c (such as distance from the shore line, vulnerability to a disaster, etc.). So, in area s at
a time t, the function of the unit value of an asset:
A
t
= g
t
(s, z, c)
Lets at time t=p, c changes to c due to the program. So
A
t=p
= g
t
(s, z, c)
So, the program impact function on the asset value is:
U(s, z, c, c)= g
t
(s, z, c)- g
t
(s, z, c)
Assuming s and z is same, we have:
U(s, z, c, c)= g
t
(c)- g
t
(c)..4
So, the difference in the unit asset value is the function of the climatic conditions that may
affect the asset with and without the program. Like k, the distribution of c is assumed to be
influenced by the implementation mode of the program and the vulnerability profiles of the
program beneficiaries.

2. Hypotheses
1. H
0
: W=0
2. H
0:

h
-
k
= 0
3. H
0:
U = 0
4. H
0:
change in W and U does not vary by vulnerability profiles
5. H
0:
changein W and U does not very by implementation mode

3. Unit of Analysis and Study Area
Individual households of the study are the unit of analysis. The study area consists of
two neighboring sub-districts, Dacope and Koyra, of Khulna district. CDMP program was
implemented in Dacope. Both of them not only share the boundary, but also face similar
climate change adversities. They share the same coast as well. Both sub-districts have high
poverty incidence, low population density and also low population growth. They also
comparable in terms of other demographic and socio-economic profiles (see Appendix 1 for
detail). Unfortunately, no public data is available to compare the trend in per capita house
hold income and unit asset value of the two sub-districts, which is essential to validate the
assumption of the empirical strategy of the study that I will discuss in the next section.
However, based on the similar socio-economic and demographic trend, I can reasonably
assume that two districts would have similar trend in the household income change and unit
asset value change should there be no CDMP.

4. Empirical Method
We will implement a differences-in-differences (DD) method to measure the impact
of CDMP. Our DD estimate for the impact will be:
DD estimator = [E(Y
1
|D = 1) E(Y
0
|D = 1)] [E(Y
1
|D = 0) E(Y
0
|D = 0)] ....5
Where, Y
1
denotes the value of the outcome variable either household income or unit asset
value) after the program; and Y
0
denotes the value before the program. D=1 denotes that the
observation is from Dacope (program area) and D=0 denotes the observation is from Koyra
(non-program area). By comparing the beforeafter change of treated units with the before
after change of control units, any common trends that these sub-districts might have would
get differenced out. Identification of the causal effects using DD relies on the assumption that
should there be no program, the average change in Y
1
Y
0
would have been the same for
treated and the control. This is called the parallel trend assumption can be expressed as

E(Y
1
|D = 1) E(Y
0
|D = 1) = E(Y
1
|D = 0) E(Y
0
|D = 0).6

If D =1 is similar to D=0, then this is a valid assumption. We have already demonstrated that
the program and the non-program area of this study are quite similar in terms of factors that
may affect our outcome variables.

As a panel regression model, our econometric specification primarily will look like:

Yit = 0 + 1 *D+ 2 T +3(D*T)+
it
7

Where Y is the outcome of interest (in our case natural log of household income and unit asset
value for sub-district i in time t); D is a dummy variable that takes the value of 1 for a program (if
in Dacope) are; T is a time period dummy variable. 3 is our parameter of interest, which we will
estimate by equation (5).

We are also interested to estimate the differences in the impact based on the implementation
mode, i.e. by government alone, by NGO alone, or by the both; and whether differences in impact
exists by vulnerability profiles of the households. Our specification will therefore look like:

Yit = 0 + 1*D+ 2*T +3(D*T)+ 4 I
t
+ 5D* I
t
+ 6T* I
t
+ 7 D*T* I
t
+
8
V
t
+
9
D* V
t
+
10
T*V
t

+
11
D*T* Vt +
it..
8

I
t
is the dummy for the implementation mode and V
t
is the dummy for vulnerable profiles, such
as female headed households, wealth quintile, small farmers, contract fishermen, within 10 miles
from the shore line, etc. 5, 7, 9, and 11 are other parameters of interest.

Besides, there might be some other factors that may confound that impact since they may be
causally linked to our outcome variables. For example, a sharp change in the sub-district
budget, social security spending, household average educational attainment, distance from the
road, distance from the weekly market, etc. So, our specification will look like:

Yit = 0 + 1*D+ 2*T +3(D*T)+ 4 I
t
+ 5D* I
t
+ 6T* I
t
+ 7 D*T* I
t
+
8
V
t
+
9
D* V
t
+
10
T*V
t

+
11
D*T* Vt + i W
i
+
it..
9

Where W is the vector of possible confounding variables.

5. Research Design, Sampling Plan, and Sample Size
The research is divided into three stages. In the first stage, we will employ some key
informant interviews with the program officials to agree on the point in time when the impact
of the program can be visible. The program started in 2006 and the first phase ended in 2009.
This is important to set the pre and post-program time period. In this stage, we will also
extensively review the program documents to identify the differences in the density of the
program activities within the program area. This is important for sampling purpose. In this
stage, we will also collect data on the budget and social security spending from the sub-
district government office.
In the second stage, we will perform some FGDs with the program beneficiaries and
program officials to refine the list of confounding variables and their measurement. This
practice will help develop a valid questionnaire. We have to be especially cautious in
developing questionnaire since we are trying to build a panel data based on a cross-sectional
survey. We will collect data on the household income, asset value, education, and wealth by
asking the sampled respondents to recall. Differences-in-differences method minimized the
recall bias since both program and non-program respondents more likely to make similar
mistakes in recalling. However, recalling if approximates the truth will help us to get a better
picture. We will conduct cognitive interviews on a small sample to identify the best way to
administer our survey in recalling past data.

5.1 Sampling plan and sample size
We will apply a two-stage sampling. Since Bangladesh does not have valid income
and asset value data recorded at the sub-district level, there is no way to know the population
mean and variance to calculate the sample size. As a rule of thumb, we will stake a sample of
100 households from each of the sub-districts. We will estimate the mean and variance from
this first stage survey to calculate our sample size. We then will follow Hedeker et al. (1999)
formula to calculate our actual sample size for each group, which is:

N= sample size
Z = standardized normal value for the level of significance (probability of type I error)
Z

= standardized normal value for the level of power of the test (1-) where is the
probability of type II error

1
-
2
is the difference between the means of the program and non-program groups

2
is the common variance of the both groups.

After calculating the actual sample size, we can know how many more households we have to
survey from each group.
If we find different density of program activities across the program area, we will
follow a stratified (high, medium and low density) sampling process for the program area.
Within each stratum, each household will be selected by systematic random sampling. Each
strata will be of equal size. If we do not find any difference in the density, we will use
systematic random sampling (SRS) to select households across the program area. SRS will be
used for the non-program area.

6. Matrix

Hypothesis Outcome
variable
Variables
of interest
Empirical
method
Confoundin
g variables
Data
source
No difference in
the household
income
Natural log of
household
income
Program
dummy
DD Education,
sub-district
budget,
social
security
Survey,
Sub-
district
govt.
offices
No difference in
the shock in
income after a
disaster event
Natural log of
household
income
Disaster
dummy
Fixed
effect
regression
Education,
sub-district
budget,
social
Survey,
Sub-
district
govt.
security offices
No difference in
the unit asset value
Unit asset value Program
dummy
DD Distance
from road,
market,
shore line
GIS data
No difference in
income change
based on
vulnerability
profiles
Natural log of
household
income
Vulnerabilit
y profile
dummies
DD Education,
sub-district
budget,
social
security
Survey,
Sub-
district
govt.
offices
No difference in
unit asset value
based on
vulnerability
profile
Unit asset value Vulnerabilit
y profile
dummies
DD Distance
from road,
market,
shore line
GIS data
No difference in
income change
based on
implementation
mode of the
program
Natural log of
household
income
Implementat
ion mode
dummy
DD Education,
sub-district
budget,
social
security
Survey,
Sub-
district
govt.
offices
No difference in
unit asset value
based on
implementation
mode of the
program
Unit asset value Implementat
ion mode
dummy
DD Distance
from road,
market,
shore line
GIS data


E. Results and Dissemination
Adaptation program being an investment intensive program requires strong evidence
to assure that it is producing the desired impact. If not, a modified program may be more
efficient. This study is expected to generate evidence-
1. that the CDMP program has an impact or not;
2. if it has, how big is that and whether the effect size justifies the expenditure;
3. that a particular implementation mode may help identify the best implementation
strategy. Ministries can integrate this implementation mode in their mainstream
development plan;
4. that variation may exist in the effect size of the program on a specific vulnerable
group, which may help ministries design target based adaptation planning.

The following dissemination strategies are planned.
1. Publication of the findings in a peer reviewed journal
2. Sharing the findings with CDMP officials
3. Writing the findings in the editorials of a few daily newspapers
4. Sharing the findings with NGOs that work in climate change policy advocacy


F. Roles and Responsibilities of the Principal Investigator
As the PI, I will design the research, design and develop the questionnaire, sampling
plan and other survey instruments. I will hire two research assistants to assist me doing
literature review and data analysis. I will form the survey team and train them. I will be
responsible for administering the survey, analyzing data, and writing the report.
I had the experience of data collection and analysis for a DD model when I worked
with Professor Ellerie Weber of Carnegie Mellon University in 2012-13 in USA. I also
worked in a social experiment under the supervision of Dr. Alessandro Acquisti of Carnegie
Mellon in 2013. As a public policy graduate, I have good exposure in econometric model
building and data analysis too.

G. Timeline




H. Bibliography
Andam, K. S., Ferraro, P. J., Pfaff, A., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A. and Robalino, J. A.
2008, Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing
deforestation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 105, No. 43,
pp. 16089 16094.

Edmonds, E.V. 2002. Government-initiated community resource management and
local resource extraction from Nepals forests, Journal of Development Economics,
Vol. 68, pp. 89-115.

Frankenberger T., Drinkwater M and Maxwell D. 2000. Operationalizing household
livelihood security: A holistic approach for addressing poverty and vulnerability Program
Document, CARE USA.

Greenstone, M. and Gayer, T., 2009. Quasi-experimental and Experimental
Approaches to Environmental Economics. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, 57 (2009) 2144

Activities Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Study Design 1
Literature & Document Review 2
KII Administration 2
FGD for questionnaire development 2
Cognitive Interview of questionnaire 1
Pretest of questionnaire 1
Survey 1 2
Survey 2 6
Data Analysis 4
Reprot writing 3
Dissemintation 1
Hederker, D., Gibbons, R. D. and Waternaux, C., 1999. Sample Size for
Longitudinal Designs with Attrition, Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics,Vol.
24, No. 1, pp. 70-93

Pfaff, A., Robalino, J. and Snches-Azofeifa, G. A. 2008. Payments for
Environmental Services: Empirical Analysis for Costa Rica, Working Paper Series,
SAN-0805, Durham: Duke University, Terry Sandford School of Public Policy.

Rasel, H. M. and Hasan, M. R., 2013. Investigation of Soil and Water Salinity, its
effect on crop production and adaptation strategy, International Journal of Water Resources
and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 8,pp. 475-481

Robalino, J., Pfaff, A., Snches-Azofeifa, G. A., Alpzar, F., Len, C. and Rodrguez,
C. M. (2008), Deforestation Impacts of Environmental Services Payments: Costa Ricas PSA
Program 2000-2005, Environment for Development Discussion Paper series


Smith, S. C. and Das, S., 2012. Awareness as an Adaptation Strategy for Reducing
Mortality from Heat Waves: Evidence from a Disaster Risk Management Program in India,
IIEWP 201206.

Uchida, E., Xu, J., Xu, Z. and Rozelle, S. 2007. Are the poor benefiting from
Chinas land conservation program?, Environment and Development Economics,
Vol.12, pp. 593-620.

World Bank, 2010. Economics of Adaptation: Bangladesh.Report No. 70266 V1.
World Bank, Washington DC.

World Bank, 2000. Bangladesh: Climate Change and Sustainable Development.
Report No. 21104-BD, Rural Development Unit, South Asia Region, The World Bank
(WB), Dhaka.














Appendix 1
Summary Statistics of Socio-economic and Demographic Indicators (Pre Program 2003-
2005 Average)
Sub-
district
Population
(in000000)
Population
Urban%
No. of Households
(HH)
Avg. HH Size Population Density
(per sq. km.)
m sd m sd m sd m sd m sd
Dacope 1.2 -- 10.2 -- 29960 -- 4.96 0.7 360.8 --
Koyra 1.9 -- 0 -- 38410 -- 4.9 0.8 249.2 --
School
Attendance %
Per capita HH
Income/month
Per capita Income
Growth Rate
Poverty Headcount
ratio
% of
small
holding
% of
Large
holding
m sd m sd
m sd
Dacope 46.5 0.5 2833 1113 4.2 1.2 0.5 73 4.7
Koyra 48.1 0.9 2670 1190 4.1 1 0.53 83.7 2.3
% of labor in
agriculture
Net cultivated
area (acre)
% of Irrigation of
cultivated area


m sd m sd m sd
Dacope 90.6 -- 38625 -- 14.6 --
Koyra 93.1 -- 23981 -- 23.2 --

Summary Statistics of Socio-economic and Demographic Indicators (Post Program
2009-2011 Average)
Sub-
district
Population
(in000000)
Population
Urban%
No. of Households
(HH)
Avg. HH Size Population Density
(per sq. km.)
m sd m sd m sd m sd m sd
Dacope 1.2 -- 10.2 -- 29960 -- 4.96 0.7 360.8 --
Koyra 1.9 -- 0 -- 45220 -- 4.5 0.9 256 --
School
Attendance %
Per capita HH
Income/month
Per capita Income
Growth Rate
Poverty Headcount
ratio
% of
small
holding
% of
Large
holding
m sd m sd m sd
m sd
Dacope 46.5 0.5 3615 1007 4.6 1.3 0.43 -- 73.5 4.9
Koyra 53.5 1.1 3272 1120 4.3 1.1 0.48 -- 82.8 2.5
% of labor in
agriculture
Net cultivated
area (acre)
% of Irrigation of
cultivated area



m sd m sd m sd

Dacope 88.4 -- -- -- 15.81 --
Koyra 91.3 -- -- -- 27.5 --
m= mean; sd= standard deviation
Source: Calculated and compiled by the author from sources of Bangladesh Bureau of
Statistics, Sub-district offices of Dacope and Koyra











Similarity in Salinity Ingress


Salinity Level in Shailmari river of Koyra by months


Salinity Level in Vadra river of Koyra by months
Source: Rasel et al. (2013)

Similarity in Climate Change Risks
Sub-
district
Salinity (ds/m) Avg. Tidal
Fluctuation (m)
Cyclone risk
Soil Surface
water
Ground
water
Overall
salinity

Dacope >15 >10 >10 High >2 High
Koyra >15 >10 >10 High >2 High

Source: Integrated Coastal Zone Management, 2003









Appendix 2
Estimated Budget
Item USD
PI salary 4000
RA salary 2000
KII, FGD, Cognitive Interview 2000
Survey 12000
Others 1000




































Researchers Profile

Mohammad Ashraful Haque completed his Masters of Science in Public Policy from
Carnegie Mellon University, USA in 2013. He has also a Masters in Public Administration.
Mr. Haque also completed a short course on Managing Environmental Policy from Boston
University, USA in 2011. In the past, he worked in one quasi experimental and one
experimental studies with Dr. Ellerie Weber and Dr. Alessandro Acquisti respectively. His
research interests and expertise include: the effect of climate change on the development
planning, climate change induced poverty, public expenditure analysis, and cost-benefit
analysis of social policies.