This study, carried out among 251 small-scale firm owners by means of a cross-sectional survey, attempted to identify the factors affecting business recovery from disaster in a flood-prone area of Bangladesh. We selected the participants by using a convenience sampling technique, taking into consideration the characteristics of the firms, and the various enabling- and disaster-impact factors needed to identify those factors significant to business recovery from natural disaster. Results demonstrated that more than three-quarters (87.3%) of owners recovered their firms after disaster. Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that a total of six variables had a significant impact on business recovery: two variables pertaining to the firms’ characteristics, namely, retail firms (OR = 0.147, P < 0.05) and the number of employees >4 (OR = 0.094, P < 0.01); two variables pertaining to enabling factors, namely, receiving loans (OR = 0.232, P < 0.01) and the perception of recovery (OR = 16.178, P < 0.01); and two variables pertaining to disaster-impact factors, namely, an income loss amounting to >BDT 2000 (OR = 7.395, P < 0.05) and permanent or temporary relocation of the market (OR = 9.252, P < 0.001). Results further demonstrated that almost equally half of the owners recovered their firms immediately or within 7 days after disaster (50.9%); the remaining 49.1% took longer. Multivariate analyses, on the other hand, significantly identified three characteristics, namely, 6–10 years of business operation (OR = 0.267, P < 0.01), 2–4 employees (OR = 0.1.822, P < 0.01), and a monthly income of BDT 5001–7500 (OR = 4.167, P < 0.01); two enabling factors, namely, institutional education (OR = 0.400, P < 0.05) and awareness of disaster assistance (OR = 0.607, P < 0.05); and two disaster-impact factors, namely, loss of human resources (OR = 6.293, P < 0.05) and interrupted supply of raw materials (OR = 4.741, P < 0.05). We concluded the study with discussions of a few policy implications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khan et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: