Survey assesses donation willingness of excess facemasks in China, suggesting freight demand management could mitigate shortages.
Purpose This study aims to assess the potential of a novel freight demand management (FDM) initiative to mitigate the effects of “panic buying,” better termed disaster-related buying behaviors (DRBBs). The initiative involves encouraging individuals who “panic bought” critical supplies to donate part of these excess supplies to people in need. Design/methodology/approach To evaluate the potential of appeals to donate “panic-bought” supplies, a survey was conducted specifically examining the purchase, hoarding and donation behaviors related to facemasks in China during the peak of the COVID-19 crisis. The authors conducted a thorough analysis of the data and used econometric models to understand the socio-economic factors that foster, or deter, the donation of critical supplies to others. Findings The data collected show that more than one-third of respondents were unable to purchase facemasks due to shortages. Econometric models were estimated to identify the socio-economic factors influencing the willingness to donate excess supplies. The findings indicate that approximately 13.7% of participants were willing to donate surplus facemasks, with donation behavior influenced by gender and education level. These results suggest that public appeals for donations could serve as a corrective tool to address DRBB-induced shortages. Research limitations/implications Some limitations should be acknowledged. First, the survey only collected data related to facemask buying behavior. Purchases of other types of products, such as hand sanitizer and toilet paper, were not studied. Second, on account of the cultural and economic differences, caution is suggested at the time of extrapolating the findings of this research to different socio-economic contexts. Originality/value This research provides critical insights into mitigating DRBBs through FDM strategies. The identified managerial initiatives offer practical guidance for policymakers and relief groups in their efforts to prevent and control these detrimental buying behaviors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Holguín‐Veras et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: