Material Convergence and
Its Determinants
Case of Hurricane Katrina
Lisa Destro and Jos Holgun-Veras
Volunteers, emergency respondents, the press, and material donations
converge at an area affected by an extreme event. The convergence of
materials is a highly heterogeneous flow of goods, ranging from critical
supplies to large influxes of low-priority goods. These low-priority goods
can hamper the flow of critical supplies because of the allocation of
resources required to manage them and because these resources distract
from other, more critical tasks. This problem is a major issue: not know-
ing the volume of material convergence that might be expected after a
disaster makes it difficult for relief agencies to prepare. This paper con-
tributes to the study of this subject through the econometric estimation
of models that attempt to explain the convergence as a function of the
socioeconomic characteristics of the donors. The models are estimated
with the use of a database of donations made after Hurricane Katrina;
the database was created by postprocessing of articles in the media. The
models show that donations have a systematic relation with the donors
socioeconomic characteristics. In general, donations have a positive
relation with income, education, number of married individuals, total
population, and household density and a negative relation with un-
employment, number of unmarried individuals, and family size. The
models indicate that monetary donations increase with the distance
from the donor to the affected site, whereas the value of in-kind donations
decreases with distance. This finding reflects the role played by trans-
portation costs in deterring donors located further away from sending
large volumes of physical goods.
Humanitarian logistics focuses on the planning and management of
relief supply flows into a disaster site to satisfy the needs of the
affected population and minimize human suffering. This is a chal-
lenging undertaking because, as discussed elsewhere (1), (a) infra-
structure and communications systems may have been affected and
unable to fully function; (b) large (and dynamic) volumes of critical
supplies must be transported; (c) the time frame in which to respond
and prevent the loss of lives and property is short; and (d) a huge
amount of uncertainty exists about what is actually needed, where it is
needed, and what is available at the site. However, other complicating
factors are present. One of them is that the occurrence of a disaster
is accompanied by a process by which volunteers, the curious, emer-
L. Destro, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 100 Cambridge Park Drive, Suite 400,
Cambridge, MA 02140. J. Holgun-Veras, Department of Civil and Environmen-
tal Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, JEC 4030, 110 8th Street,
Troy, NY 12180. Corresponding author: L. Destro, ldestro@camsys.com.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2234, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2011, pp. 1421.
DOI: 10.3141/2234-02
14
gency respondents, the press, and material donations converge to the
affected area (2).
The convergence of materialsthe main focus of this paper
comprises a highly heterogeneous flow of goods, ranging from supplies
of critical importance to the response process to large influxes of
low-priority goods that clog the supply chains and entry points to
the area. The negative impacts of the latter are substantial. On the one
hand, failure to deal with the low-priority flows in most cases leads
to clogged supply chains and delays at entry points. On the other
hand, attempts to manage the flow of low-priority goods distract
significant amounts of resources from other more critical tasks.
This is because control procedures to expedite processing of the
vehicles transporting critical supplies while preventing access to the
ones loaded with low-priority supplies must be established.
Although convergent behavior has been identified in all disasters,
the amount of research that has been conducted on this subject is not
proportional to its importance (1). This was highlighted in a previous
report, which emphasized the lack of research on material convergence,
as the publications on this topic have mostly focused on personnel
convergence (3). Holgun-Veras et al. (1) and Neal (4) are among
the few investigators who have discussed material convergence.
Nevertheless, material convergence is an important subject because
it affects the delivery of critical supplies to the site of an extreme
event. As seen in recent disasters such as the 2001 World Trade
Center attacks, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Hurricane Katrina
in 2005, and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, low-priority donations cause
problems to humanitarian logistics. As has been argued elsewhere,
the humanitarian logistic debacle that followed Hurricane Katrina
was partly due to the lack of planning for handling and distribution
of donations (1).
This article studies material convergence by using the Hurricane
Katrina response as a case study. As part of this research, a database
of donations made after Hurricane Katrina was assembled by post-
processing of articles in the media. These data were used to estimate
econometric models as a function of the socioeconomic characteris-
tics of the donors. Development of such models is important, because
their use might improve the efficiency of humanitarian relief efforts
by giving relief groups an idea of the amounts of material conver-
gence that could be expected after a disaster, and thus help them to
be ready for material convergence.
The paper is organized in the following manner. A literature
review describes the findings from previous studies of material con-
vergence and donation behavior. The process of putting together the
data as well as the limitations of the data is described. A descriptive
analysis illustrates the basic characteristics of the data. A descrip-
tion of the modeling approach is provided. The model results are
Destro and Holgun-Veras
presented and discussed, and finally, conclusions discuss the key
findings of the study.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Disasters leave behind considerable physical damage and loss of life.
These human tragedies prompt a process of convergence of personnel,
information, and material to the affected area (2). Material conver-
gence, that is, the movement of goods to the disaster site, brings about
both positive and negative impacts, which is a consequence of the
profound heterogeneity of the supplies delivered. On the positive side,
the flow of high-priority supplies such as water and blood could be
the difference between life and death for many victims. At the same
time, the flow of nonpriority items, for example, clothing, in most
cases hampers the flow of critical supplies by distracting resources
from critical tasks, and more often than not, these items are of little
use for the population in need. Many emergency responders refer to
this as a second-tier disaster (5). The fundamental issue is that
the logistic system has a limited capacity, and if it is left unchecked,
a high volume of low-priority supplies could impede the flow of the
high-priority supplies. Avoiding this outcome requires relief agencies
to allocate scarce resources to control and manage the low-priority
flows. In essence, the efficiency of the flow of critical supplies depends
on the flow of low-priority supplies.
Management of the flow of low-priority supplies is a major
challenge because it consumes significant amounts of resources
in transportation, storage, preservation, inventory, sorting, and dis-
tribution. The key issues, as discussed elsewhere (2, 6), are that the
low-priority supplies
(1) normally arrive in volumes far in excess of the actual needs; (2) are
comprised, in large proportions, of unneeded and unusable materials;
(3) require the services of large numbers of personnel and facilities
which could be used for more essential tasks; (4) often cause conflicts
among relief agencies or among various segments of the population;
(5) materially add to the problem of congestion in and near the disaster
site; and (6) in some cases may disrupt the local economy. (2)
This review shows that even with the experience that humanitarian
organizations have gained through decades of disaster response, they
have no idea how much material convergence they would have to
handle in a disaster. More often than not, they are overwhelmed by the
massive influx of goods. Here are some accounts from past disasters
that show the disruptive impacts of material convergence. In 1967,
after the bushfires disaster in southern Tasmania, Australia: the
convergence phenomenon . . . was experienced in full measure, with
messages, people, material and money pouring into the disaster area in
such abundance that its organizational resources, caught completely
unprepared, came near to collapsing under the strain (7). In the after-
math of the World Trade Center attacks in 2001: Chris Ward . . .
[was] snaking through a tunnel of cardboard crates, past boxes. . . .
The problem is, very little of it was needed . . . little of the cargo
reached the intended recipients, as they simply had no use for it (5).
In 2005, in the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma:
Donation management is the most difficult part of every disaster,
a man said as he unsorted mountains of clothes. We have a little bit
of everything (8). Most recently, in Haiti material convergence . . .
created problems in the response to the earthquake. For example,
scores of airplanes were diverted to Santo Domingo and landed with
unclassified cargo and no consignee. They had to be unloaded,
and their cargo had to be sorted out, classified, and transported to
15
Haiti at the Dominican governments expense. This cargo included
10 containers with European refrigerators that were of no use in
Port au Prince because of the prevailing lack of power (9).
Therefore, although material convergence can be helpful, many
commodities provided are inappropriate given emergent needs, are
donated at inappropriate times, or are in excess of what is required.
In addition, the superfluous donations require the expenditure of con-
siderable resources to manage or dispose of them (1). This insight was
confirmed by a survey of logisticians from the largest international
organizations active in the relief efforts to the areas affected by the
2004 Asian tsunami (10). The survey concluded that the process of
identifying, prioritizing, transporting, and storing unsolicited dona-
tions that were delivered directly to disaster areas required valuable
resources and had a detrimental effect on the recovery activities.
The process by which material convergence arises is linked to the
desire to help victims and accrue other kinds of benefits (e.g., good
will and an enhanced reputation). A substantial body of literature
described studies of these motivating factors. It has been suggested that
individuals derive well-being from both giving and consuming (11);
that is, utility functions are defined over a persons own consumption
and saving and consumption by the recipient (12). Moreover, it has
been suggested that people make choices about whether to give their
time and money for the benefit of others in light of the resources at
their disposal (13). Their resources include their human, cultural, and
social capital (14), as well as their time, income, and wealth (13).
Bryant et al. discuss the socioeconomic characteristics of individuals
targeted by charitable agencies when they solicit donations (13).
Hood et al. state that individual donations rise with income, although
the increase is somewhat less than proportional (12). This was
reaffirmed by Bryant et al. (13). Muller and Whiteman argue that
for corporate donations, organizational behavior in response to major
disasters varies systematically across regions (15). Because of a
home regional effect and a local presence effect, firms pay more
attention to disasters closer to home or in locations where they have
a local presence, possibly out of a sense of responsibility and a
greater degree of tangibility (15).
DATA COLLECTION
The data used in the paper try to capture the flow of donations
generated after Hurricane Katrina. The data were assembled by post-
processing articles in the media about donations published between
August 2005 and December 2006. About 3,100 articles were collected,
read, and processed. Information about donations pertaining to who,
what, how, when, where, to whom, and how much, among others, was
captured in a form created for this purpose. The next steps were to
organize, clean, code, complete, and filter the data. In cases in which
information was missing, research was conducted to complete the
data as best as possible. In general, observations were taken out if a
reasonable way to estimate or obtain the key missing information was
not available. Once the data were coded and cleaned, the donations
were converted to U.S. dollars. For analysis purposes, only the
donations that were made inside the United States were used. The
final data set represents 1,016 observations (individual donations) from
801 different donors and with a total worth of about $1,069 million
dollars in both monetary and in-kind donations.
However, some limitations should be acknowledged. First, because
newspaper articles and web publications were the source for the infor-
mation, the data collected are not likely to represent all donations
made, as only those reported in the media were included. Second,
16
because many of these publications had incomplete information, not
all of them could be included in the final data set.
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
The data set was organized so that donations can be visualized as a
flow (Figure 1). Most donors made their donations through another
organization rather than directly to the hurricane victims. Of all
donations, 31.5% were made directly to the affected area or to the
final recipients and 68.5% were made indirectly through another
organization that distributed the donations to the hurricane victims.
Only in the case of charitable organizations and government agen-
cies did a larger percentage of donations go directly to the hurricane
victims. This would be expected, considering that these are usually
the organizations that are responsible for distributing donations.
Government refers to agencies that did not have an official
responsibility to help in the Katrina response but did so anyway.
According to the data, the largest recipient of donations was the
American Red Cross, which collected 44% of the indirect donations.
This is no surprise, given that the American Red Cross raised
donations in excess of $2 billion for Hurricane Katrina, or two-thirds
of the total amount collected by charitable groups (16). Other orga-
nizations that received significant amounts were the Salvation Army,
Habitat for Humanity, the BushClinton Katrina Fund, United Way,
Feed the Children, and Americas Second Harvest. By donor type,
the majority of donors were companies (48%) and individuals (20%).
According to donation value, 54% came from companies and 34%
came from charitable organizations, nonprofit organizations (NPOs),
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and churches.
Table 1 shows the total monetary value of each group of com-
modities donated. For the analysis conducted in this article, the
monetary donations are treated as a commodity. Monetary dona-
tions constituted 58% of the value of all donations, followed by
Companies 74%
26%
($404.3 million)
Schools and libraries
27% 73%
($171.5 million)
Associations and clubs
26% 74%
($75.9 million)
Intermediate organizations
(e.g., Red Cross, Salvation
Army, Second Harvest)
Hurricane Katrina
Impacted Area
FIGURE 1 Flow of donations.
Transportation Research Record 2234
rebuilding efforts, which represented 15% of the total worth of
donations; medical supplies, which represented 8%; telecommuni-
cations equipment and services, which represented 4%; and food,
which represented 3%. Information on how the monetary donations
were used is not available, and they could have been used in any of
the other groups.
In Table 1, the percentages of monetary value can be compared with
the percentages of the amounts of commodities that were donated.
The results show that high-value commodities, such as medical
supplies, represent large percentages of the total monetary value of the
donations and small percentages of the total amount of commodities.
On the contrary, cheaper commodities, such as food, water, textiles,
toiletries, cleaning items, sanitary paper items, school supplies, books,
and toys, were donations that had larger amounts than monetary
value. Only a few donations to rebuilding efforts (1.7%) were made
but they had huge monetary value (14.7%), because they represented
the total amounts that specific charities donated over long periods of
time. The commodity groups of monetary donations, mixed critical
supplies, furniture, and jobs had fairly consistent percentages for
both monetary value and amount.
The seven highest commodity groups by value of donations were
money, construction, medical supplies, telecommunications, food,
transportation, and mixed critical supplies. The seven highest com-
modity groups by amount donated were monetary donations, food,
textiles, transportation, water, medical supplies, and toiletries and
sanitary paper items. Table 2 shows the distribution of the value of
these commodity groups by donor type.
Companies and corporations donated the majority of the worth of
each commodity group: 53% for monetary donations; 57% for food;
84% for textiles; 98% for medical supplies; 58% for water and ice;
81% for personal hygiene, cleaning, and sanitary paper items; 97%
for telecommunications equipment and services; and 73% for trans-
portation, rescue, and order-related donations. In the case of mixed
critical supplies, the majority was donated by NPOs, charitable orga-
NPO, NGO, charitable
44% 56%
organizations, churches
($236.3 million)
Individuals
67% 33%
($151.7 million)
Government
46% 54%
($29.5 million)
Destro and Holgun-Veras 17

TABLE 1 Total Amount and Value of Commodities Donated, by Commodity Group

Value in Dollars Donations

Commodity Group Description and Examples $ % No. %

Money Monetary donations (cash, checks) 620,262,769 58.01 729 57.54

Rebuilding efforts Construction materials and services 156,850,819 14.67 21 1.66
Medical supplies Medicine, medical equipment, first-aid kits, medical services (including 85,687,973 8.01 41 3.24
doctors and nurses) mobile exam rooms, and pet medical supplies
Telecommunications Telecommunications equipment and services, Internet service 38,207,312 3.57 30 2.37
providers
Food Food (including animal food and mobile kitchens) 27,009,083 2.53 91 7.18
Transportation, Transportation services and equipment, logistics services, fuel, order 23,968,180 2.24 46 3.63
rescue, and order forces, rescue teams (military, emergency, police, firefighters)
Supplies Mixed critical commodities, emergency preparedness kits 22,245,532 2.08 24 1.89
Housing Housing and shelter 18,021,065 1.69 32 2.53
Electric, electronic, and Electrical, electronic, and mechanical equipment and machinery 17,434,029 1.63 23 1.82
mechanical equipment (pumps, generators, computers, printers)
Advertisement Advertising time on TV to announce donation needs 15,600,000 1.46 4 0.32
Textiles Textiles (clothing, shoes, blankets, quilts, tents, backpacks) 12,014,236 1.12 72 5.68
Water and ice Water, beverages, and ice 10,621,449 0.99 43 3.39
Personal hygiene, Toiletries; hygiene and cleaning items; and diapers, paper towels, toilet 7,508,993 0.70 39 3.08
cleaning, and sanitary paper, and baby wipes
paper items
School supplies Books and school supplies 6,105,396 0.57 33 2.60
Furniture Cots, beds, mattresses, sofas, home furnishings 3,695,098 0.35 9 0.71
Recreational items Recreational items (toys, bicycles, sporting goods) 2,109,295 0.20 22 1.74
Jobs Jobs (temporary jobs) 1,745,000 0.16 3 0.24
Others Others (pet bowls, swipe cards) 169,950 0.02 5 0.39
Total 1,069,256,178 100 1,267 100

nizations, and churches (53%), followed closely by companies, which
donated 43% of the total worth of mixed critical supplies. Charitable
organizations donated 95% of the donations for rebuilding.
The data show that individuals and schools represent a relatively
small percentage of the total worth of the donations. This is because
of their low level of capital power compared with that of large corpo-
rations, national business associations, and large international chari-
table organizations. It does not come as a surprise that government
agencies made 25% of donations for transportation, rescue, and order,
considering that they are usually responsible for these functions.
The donations were geographically located by zip code by use of
a geographic information system. The donations originated from

TABLE 2 Distribution of Commodity Group Value, by Donor Type

Distribution (%) by Commodity Group

Personal
Hygiene,
Cleaning, Transportation,
Medical Water Supplies and Sanitary Telecom- Rescue, and
Donor Type Money Food Textiles Supplies and Ice (mixed) Paper Items munication Order Rebuilding

Associations 3.45 3.91 9.92 0.02 2.83 0.00 0.01 2.62 0.03 0.00
and clubs
Companies 53.42 57.42 84.28 97.59 58.19 43.46 81.04 97.24 72.57 5.27
Government 0.13 0.05 0.11 0.00 36.45 2.44 0.50 0.02 24.89 0.00
Individuals 8.98 0.63 2.56 0.83 0.23 2.38 1.90 0.01 2.44 0.01
NPOs, charitable 33.77 37.84 0.52 1.56 2.18 51.72 16.40 0.11 0.08 94.72
organizations,
and churches
Schools and 0.25 0.14 2.62 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
libraries
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
(106 US$) ($620.26) ($27.01) ($12.01) ($85.69) ($10.62) ($16.36) ($7.51) ($38.21) (23.97) ($156.85)
18
FIGURE 2 Total value of donations by zip code.
619 different zip codes. The states where more donations originated
were Florida, with 122 donations (12%); New York, with 118 dona-
tions (11.6%); California, with 88 donations (8.7%); Maryland, with
85 donations (8.4%); and Texas, with 76 donations (7.5%). The zip
codes where more donations originated are presented in Figure 2.
MODELING METHODOLOGY
The data used for modeling consist of 1,009 donations. The original
data set had to be reduced to 1,009 observations because seven
observations constituted about 29% (more than $300 million) of
the value of all donations. These outliers were large cumulative
donations from large charities (e.g., Habitat for Humanity and Catholic
Charities). Because many of the rest of the reported donations
corresponded to aggregations of individual contributions, the socio-
economic indicators for the originating zip codes were assumed to
be the characteristics for the actual donors. Although they are far from
complete because they include only the donations that were reported
in the media, the data provide a unique look into the statistical patterns
of material convergence.
The dependent variable is the total worth of donations in U.S.
dollars, and the independent variables are the socioeconomic char-
acteristics of the donation origin zip code, the distance from the
origin to the affected area, and interaction terms between binary and
socioeconomic variables. The socioeconomic variables were taken
from U.S. Bureau of the Census zip code tabulation areas data. The
Transportation Research Record 2234
binary variables represent qualitative data, such as the region of
the donation, donor type, and the like.
Ordinary-least-squares techniques were used to estimate the
models. Linear and nonlinear models were used to represent the
relation between the value of the donations and the independent
variables previously described. The data were modeled from both
disaggregate and aggregate perspectives for monetary donations,
in-kind donations, and all donations. The disaggregate models esti-
mate the value of individual donations, whereas the aggregate models
estimate the total value of donations at the county level.
RESULTS
The following sections present the results for the best models esti-
mated. The relative low coefficient of correlation [adjusted (adj) R2]
found in all models suggests that other important factors have not
been captured by the models, which is to be expected in complex
problems like this one. The results discussed in this section correspond
to a disaggregate model of donation value and an aggregate model
of donations at the county level.
Disaggregate Model of Donation Value
This section discusses the modeling results corresponding to the
value of individual donations. These models attempt to capture the
Destro and Holgun-Veras 19

statistical linkage between the value of a donation and the socio- TABLE 4 Best Disaggregate Model of Value of Monetary
economic characteristics of the donor used as input. It is important Donations (Nonlinear Model)
to mention that the decision about how much to donate (which is the
focus of the models in this section) is part of a process in which the Variable Coefficient t-Value
donor decides whether to donate. Because the set of data collected Distance in miles from donation origins to 9.917 12.61
had no information on individuals or organizations that did not make affected area
donations, the process of deciding whether to donate could not be Ratio of population 25+ years of age with 0.832 7.20
modeled as part of this research. This section discusses the findings high school diploma to population
for three different dependent variables: the value of all donations, 25+ years of age
the value of monetary donations, and the value of in-kind donations. Family income per capita for organization 0.333 21.72
headquarters
Percentage of civilian unemployed 0.317 2.13
Value of All Donations population in labor force 16+ years of age
located in the Midwest region
The first models estimated with the disaggregate data were for all Constant 9.917 12.61
donations (monetary and in-kind). Table 3 shows the best model
found. The results suggest that the value of the donations has a direct NOTE: F = 144.75, R2 = 44.6%, R2 adj. = 44.3%, n = 724.
relation with

Family income per capita,
The population density of the area in which company head-
quarters are located, and
Identification of donors as individuals or companies, which
tended to donate more than government agencies, used as the base
group for the estimation process. (Individual donations that received
news coverage did so because of the high profile of the donor or the
relatively large amount of the donation.)
located farther from the affected area are more inclined to send
larger monetary donations.
Family income per capita in areas where the headquarters of
organizations are found. This implies that donor companies whose
headquarters are located in zip codes where the population is well
off are more inclined to make larger monetary donations.
In contrast, the value of monetary donations decreases with

In contrast, the value of donations decreases with
Distance from the donor zip code to the affected site [this factor
suggests that geographic proximity and, perhaps, cultural affinity
play a role and is consistent with previous findings (15)] and
Ratio of unemployed population and population with only a
high school diploma to the total population.
Value of Monetary Donations
The next model was estimated specifically for the monetary donations
(Table 4). This model suggests that the value of monetary donations
increases with
Distance. Donors who are closer to the disaster site prefer to
send goods rather than monetary donations; in contrast, donors
TABLE 3 Best Disaggregate Model of Value of All Donations
(Nonlinear Model)
Variable Coefficient t-Value
Ratio of the population with only high school diplomas to the total
population, which is a finding that makes sense, because the population
with lower levels of education would be less inclined to make larger
monetary donations, possibly because of their income levels, and
Ratio of the unemployed population to the total population for
donors from the Midwest region.
Value of In-Kind Donations
Table 5 presents the best model found for in-kind donations. In this
case, the value of the donations increases with
Identification of donors as organization headquarters, which
tended to donate more than nonorganizations or individuals, who
were used as the base of the estimation process;
Median rent, which suggests that donors who are located in
areas where the rent is high tend to send more goods than those
located in areas where the rent is low; and
TABLE 5 Best Disaggregate Model of Value of In-Kind Donations
(Nonlinear Model)

Population density for organization 0.391 17.26 Variable Coefficient t-Value

headquarters
Ratio of population 16+ years old and 0.189 2.81 Distance in miles from donation origins 0.433 3.76
unemployed to total population to affected area
Distance in miles from donation origin to 0.381 4.35 Donors that are organization headquarters 3.181 16.28
affected area Ratio of population <20 years old to total 0.525 2.39
Ratio of population 25+ years old with 0.773 6.07 population
high school diploma to total population Median rent 0.298 4.75
Family income per capita 0.092 1.81 Percentage of civilian unemployed population 0.278 3.32
Donors who are individuals 0.612 3.03 in labor force 16+ years old
Donors that are companies 0.420 2.32 Population density of the Midwest region 0.201 2.17
Constant 8.490 10.26 Constant 9.511 11.17

NOTE: F = 95.68, R2 = 41.1%, R2 adj. = 39.7%, n = 1,009. NOTE: F = 57.93, R2 = 39.6%, R2 adj. = 38.9%, n = 537.
20 Transportation Research Record 2234

Population density in the Midwest region, with the denser zip TABLE 7 Best County-Level Model of Total Value of Monetary
codes in the Midwest region donating more goods than the less Donations (Linear Model)
dense ones.
Variable Coefficient t-Value
In contrast, the value of the in-kind donations decreases with
Total population 2064 years old 2.911 5.07
Distance. By implication, donors who are closer to the affected Household density 2,003.3 15.75
area send more in-kind donations than donors who are located far- Percentage of population 15+ years old 18,641,737 3.90
ther away. This finding indicates that distance has opposite effects who are married
on in-kind and monetary donations. It makes sense that donors who are Ratio of population 25+ years old with 5,631,825 2.70
farther away prefer to donate money rather than goods, which is more high school diploma to total population,
for donations from the Northeast region
convenient because of the transportation arrangements associated
Constant 9,526,204 3.59
with making in-kind donations.
Ratio of population younger than 20 years old to total population.
NOTE: F = 80.86, R2 = 65.3%, R2 adj. = 64.5%, n = 177.
Percentage of unemployed civilian population in labor force
older than 16 years old.
In contrast, the value of monetary donations per county decreases
with the ratio of the population with only high school diplomas to
Aggregate Model at County Level the total population for counties in the Northeast region.

Models for monetary, in-kind, and all donations were estimated at

the county level by using the total flow of donations at the county
level as the dependent variable. The best models are shown in this
section. An attempt was made to estimate the models at the zip code
level, although it was unsuccessful. More information is provided
elsewhere (17 ). Table 6 shows that the value or flow of donations
per county increases with
Total population between the ages of 20 and 64 years old,
Household density, and
Family income per capita.
The value of donations per county decreases with the average
family size for counties located in the Northeast region. This finding
suggests that in the Northeast region, the average family size plays a
significant role, as larger families donate less than smaller families.
Total Flow of Monetary Donations
The best model for the total flow of monetary donations aggregated
by county is shown in Table 7. Results show that the total value of
donations increases with
Total population between the ages of 20 and 64 years old,
Household density, and
Percentage of population aged 15 years old and older that is
married.
TABLE 6 Best County-Level Model of Total Value of Donations
(Linear Model)
Total Flow of In-Kind Donations
Finally, the aggregated model for in-kind donations was estimated.
Table 8 shows the best model for the total value of in-kind donations.
This model is nonlinear and indicates that the value of in-kind
donations per county increases with total population and family
income per capita.
Analysis
The disaggregate models indicate that, in accordance with previous
findings (13), as income and education levels increase, the value
of donations increases. In contrast, as the unemployment level
increases, the value of donations decreases. Donor type was also
found to be significant, as companies and headquarters make larger
donations. Individuals were also found to make larger donations.
However, these individuals donations received news coverage
because of the high profile of the donor or the relatively large amount
of the donation, so these individual donations were not representative
of the ones made by ordinary citizens.
Another important finding is that organizations located in highly
populated places tend to donate more than the ones located in less
populated places. The donors located in the denser areas of the
Midwest made larger in-kind donations than the ones located in less
dense areas. In essence, large donations come from highly populated
areas. The models indicate that the internal composition of the
population is a factor, as some segments have a greater inclination
to make large donations.
The modeling process found interesting results on the role of dis-
tance. The disaggregate models indicate that the value of monetary

Variable Coefficient t-Value

TABLE 8 Best County-Level Model of Total Value
of In-Kind Donations (Nonlinear Model)
Total population 2064 years old 3.779 4.16
Household density 1,571.6 8.27 Variable Coefficient t-Value
Family income per capita 312.78 3.74
Average family size for donors located in the 884,980 2.67 Total population 0.567 3.63
Northeast region Family income per capita 2.456 3.08
Constant 5,003,905 2.70 Constant 19.018 2.54

NOTE: F = 35.93, R2 = 41%, R2 adj. = 39.8%, n = 212. NOTE: F = 17.67, R2 = 21.6%, R2 adj. = 20.4%, n = 131.
Destro and Holgun-Veras
donations increases with distance, whereas the value of in-kind
donations decreases. This is most likely a reflection of the role
played by transportation costs, which deter potential in-kind donors
from attempting to transport goods long distances. The behavior of
the in-kind donations agrees with the findings concerning corporate
donations of Muller and Whiteman (15).
The aggregate models at the county level indicate that larger
populations (particularly of individuals between 20 and 64 years of age)
make donations of greater value. This was the situation for all cases
considered (monetary donations, in-kind donations, and both kinds
of donations). The household density in the county was found to have
a positive relation with the value of donations. Income level was also
found to be significant, as in the disaggregate models; and for the
Northeast region, family size and education were also found to be sig-
nificant. Counties with more married individuals were found to donate
more money, which is consistent with the findings of Bryant et al., who
suggested that married individuals are more inclined to donate because
they have more societal connections than single individuals (13).
CONCLUSIONS
This paper contributes to the study of material convergence through
the econometric modeling of the donations made in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina. Two sets of models (at both the disaggregate and
aggregate levels) were estimated for monetary donations, in-kind
donations, and all donations. The disaggregate model focused on
the value of individual donations, whereas the county-level models
did so for the value of the total flows of donations from the county.
The models provide insight into the socioeconomic variables that
influence material convergence. The disaggregate model revealed
that geographical proximity to the disaster (distance), income,
education, unemployment, type of donor (e.g., organization head-
quarters, company, and individual) play a role in explaining the
amount of donations. The county-level models indicate that the value
of total donations increases with the level of education, wealth, and
other variables, such as the number of married individuals.
The role played by distance to the disaster site deserves further
discussion. The disaggregate models for all donations found that
donation value decreases with distance, indicating that donors donate
more if they are close to the affected site. However, when the data
were split between in-kind and monetary donations, two contrasting
results were found. In the case of in-kind donations, the model indi-
cated that their value decreases with distance, which agrees with the
findings in the freight demand modeling literature. The model for
monetary donations, however, found that donation value increases
with distance, which is the exact opposite of the case for in-kind
donations. These results indicate the existence of a shift toward
monetary donations as distance increases, which makes sense, as doing
so avoids the costs of transporting supplies over long distances.
These results have important implications for humanitarian
logistics because they suggest that if an event like Hurricane Katrina
happens, for example, in the vicinity of a large and relatively wealthy
population center, it would generate a significantly larger volume of
in-kind donations than if it happened in a remote area. Therefore, the
impacts on the humanitarian logistics would be greater, by requiring
larger amounts of resources to control and reduce the flows of
low-priority goods and to expedite the flow of high-priority supplies.
It seems clear that despite the contributions made to material
convergence research, much more research is needed to understand
this complex subject. This includes but is not limited to the estimation
of models with more accurate and complete data. Another important
21
aspect for further research is the analysis and comparison of the
material convergence patterns for a wide spectrum of disasters to
determine the generality of the conclusions presented here.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation
with a grant, Decision Making, Risk, and Uncertainty: Contending
with Material Convergence: Optimal Control, Coordination, and
Delivery of Critical Supplies to the Site of Extreme Events, and
Field Investigation on the Comparative Performance of Alternative
Humanitarian Logistic Structures. The authors acknowledge and
appreciate this support.
REFERENCES
1. Holgun-Veras, J., N. Perez, S. V. Ukkusuri, T. Wachtendorf, and B.
Brown. Emergency Logistics Issues Affecting the Response to Katrina: A
Synthesis and Preliminary Suggestions for Improvement. In Transporta-
tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2022, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 7682.
2. Fritz, C., and J. H. Mathewson, Convergent Behavior: A Disaster Con-
trol Problem. Special Report for the Committee on Disaster Studies.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1956.
3. Scanlon, J. Convergence Revisited: A New Perspective on a Little Studied
Topic. Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder,
1991.
4. Neal, D. M. The Consequences of Excessive Unrequested Donations
The Case of Hurricane Andrew. Disaster Management, Vol. 6, No. 1,
1994, pp. 2328.
5. $75 Million of Stuff. Newsweek, Feb. 18, 2002, pp. 6263.
6. Dynes, R. R. Organized Behavior in Disaster. Heath Lexington Books,
Lexington, Mass., 1970.
7. Wettenhall, R. L. Organisation and Disaster: The 1967 Bushfires in
Southern Tasmania. In Natural Hazards in Australia (R. L. Heathcote and
B. G. Thom, eds.), Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, Australia,
1979, pp. 431435.
8. Officials Sort out Leftover Katrina Donations. Corpus-Christi Caller-
Times, Oct. 1, 2005. http://www.caller.com/news/2005/oct/01/officials-
sort-out-leftover-katrina-donations/.
9. Holgun-Veras, J., and N. Perez. On the Need to Reformulate Humani-
tarian Logistics Modeling. Presented at 89th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010.
10. Logistics and Effective Delivery of Humanitarian Relief. Fritz Institute,
San Francisco, Calif., 2005.
11. Schwartz, R. A. Personal Philanthropic Contributions. Journal of Political
Economy, Vol. 78, No. 6, 1970, pp. 12641291.
12. Hood, R. D., S. A. Martin, and L. S. Osberg. Economic Determinants
of Individual Charitable Donations in Canada. Canadian Journal of
Economics, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1977, pp. 653669.
13. Bryant, W. K., H. Jeon-Slaughter, H. Kang, and A. Tax. Participation
in Philanthropic Activities: Donating Money and Time. Journal of
Consumer Policy, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2003, pp. 4373.
14. Wilson, J., and M. Musick. Who Cares? Toward an Integrated Theory
of Volunteer Work. American Sociological Review, Vol. 62, 1997,
pp. 694713.
15. Muller, A., and G. Whiteman. Exploring the Geography of Corporate
Philanthropic Disaster Response: A Study of Fortune Global 500 Firms.
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 84, No. 4, 2008, pp. 589603.
16. A Failure of Initiative: Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee
to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina.
U.S. House of Representatives, Apr. 11, 2006. http://www.gpoaccess.
gov/congress/index.html.
17. Destro, L. Estimating Material Convergence: Flow of Donations for
Hurricane Katrina. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y., 2010,
p. 68.
The Critical Transportation Infrastructure Protection Committee peer-reviewed
this paper.