International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 (2018) 199–213

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Contributions of gaming simulation in building community-based disaster T

risk management applying Japanese case to flood prone communities in
Thailand upstream area
⁎
Puntita Tanwattanaa, , Yusuke Toyodab
a
Environmental Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
b
College of Policy Science, Ritsumeikan University, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Thailand has a long history of flood disasters. The Great Flood in 2011, for example, affected many parts of the
Gaming simulation country, including Bangkok. This obviously revealed the limitations of disaster management by the government.
Flood Movements in responding and helping communities to manage against flood disasters are still ambiguous and
Community-based disaster risk management rudimentary; while local communities still rely on external support. This study aims to strengthen community-
Japan
based disaster risk management (CBDRM) by using gaming simulation (GS) as a tool. This is participatory action
Thailand
research (PAR) using empirical data from applying GS, participatory observation and interviews in selected
communities. Three flood prone communities in an upstream province in Thailand that represent successful case,
on-going case and non-active case in building CBDRM used as case studies. The GS named ‘Community
Cooperation Game’ (CCG) was designed as a prototype in a Japanese case study on flood management in Sonobe
District, Kyoto Prefecture. The CCG was applied in the three flood prone communities in Thailand; that enabled
these three communities to simulate flood situations and make mutual decisions on how to manage flood sce-
narios by following roles, rules and scenarios of the game. The main findings of this study are 1) a list of GS
contributions in achieving CBDRM process indicators; and 2) evidence that suggest that GS can be used as a
valuable tool to build CBDRM process by promoting social resilience through CCG in local communities in
Thailand. The research concludes that the prototype of CCG on building CBDRM can be generalized in Thai local
communities.

1. Background prevent or minimize its disastrous recurrence. However, movements in

Thailand has experienced flood disaster several times. The Chao
Phraya basin (along the main river in Thailand) gets flooded naturally
because of its topography and climate. Climate change is likely to in-
crease both flood risk and its severity in the future. However, the pri-
mary driver of the increase of severe floods in the basin in recent years
is human interventions in the environment such as the rapid urbani-
zation, deforestation and attempts to control water resources for irri-
gation and power generation [1,2]. The last extreme flood in 2011 af-
fected 12.8 million people, caused 728 deaths, damaged 10.417 million
rais (16,668.55 square km) of agricultural area and 9859 factories af-
fecting 660,000 jobs. Overall, the total damage and loss amounted to
THB1.43 trillion (USD 46.5 billion), with economic losses accounting
for 56% of the total [3]. It was the worst flooding in at least five dec-
ades in Thailand. An important lesson is that, with a long history and
experiences of flood disasters, better solutions should be developed to
responding and helping the community to manage against flood dis-
asters are still not well developed [4]. It obviously reveals the limitation
of disaster risk reduction and emergency responses by the community
and government in general [5–7]. The main problem is lack of a well
designed disaster management system. Unsystematic and un-
coordinated flood response system still depends on each local admin-
istrative authority with no single command system. This caused in-
decisive and inadequate flood fighting activities, supporting measures,
and social and political involvement that resulted in confrontation and
conflicts during flood operations [6]. This obviously reveals the
weaknesses and limitations in the organization of disaster management
and emergency responses by the community and government [8].
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 [9]
prioritizes ‘enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and
to Build Back Better in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction’. One
of the expected outcomes is to ‘substantially increase the number of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Puntita.t@chula.ac.th (P. Tanwattana).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.10.007
Received 13 June 2017; Received in revised form 29 September 2017; Accepted 4 October 2017
Available online 09 October 2017
2212-4209/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Tanwattana, Y. Toyoda
countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies by
2020′. The role of stakeholders as community-based organizations is
also promoted [9]. There have been several studies on community-
based disaster risk management conducted in a number of countries
[8,10–16]. However, there appears to be no studies on applying gaming
simulation to build CBDRM. Thus, this research aims to contribute to
the literature by showing how gaming simulation can be useful in
building CBDRM and to promote social resilience in local communities
in Thailand.
2. Literature review
For the past 20–30 years, the need for community-based disaster
risk reduction (CBDRR) system had been discussed [10]. Thus, com-
munity-based approach is not new. Community-based disaster man-
agement (CBDM) had been a popular term in the late 1980s and 1990s
[10], which gradually evolved to CBDRM, and then to CBDRR. CBDRM
and CBDRR are often used with similar meanings [10], with enhanced
focus on ‘risk’. While CBDRR focuses more on pre-disaster activities for
risk reduction by the communities, CBDRM focuses on a broader per-
spective of risk-reduction-related activities by communities, before,
during and after the disaster. The emphasis or need of CBDRR is found
to be similar in both developing and developed countries, as argued by
Shaw and Goda (2004) [10].
2.1. Community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM)
CBDRM and CBDRR (hereafter simply called as CBDRM for both of
CBDRM and CBDRR as they are often exchangeable) refer to both
concepts and processes [27]. It is a process of disaster risk management
in which at risk communities are actively engaged in the identification,
analysis, treatment, monitoring and evaluation of disaster risks in order
to reduce their vulnerabilities and enhance their capacities [21]. This
means that the people are at the heart of decision making and im-
plementation of disaster risk management activities. The involvement
of most vulnerable social groups is considered as paramount in this
process, while the support of the least vulnerable groups is necessary for
successful implementation [28]. CBDRM approach is people- and de-
velopment-oriented. It views disasters as an issue of people’s vulner-
ability. It empowers people to address the root causes of vulnerabilities
by transforming social, economic and political structures that generate
inequality and underdevelopment [21,42]. CBDRM approach covers
prevention and mitigation, preparedness, emergency response and re-
covery [21].
The process indicators of CBDRM include (1) to undertake
groundwork for CBDRM, (2) select communities for CBDRM through
risk assessment, (3) build rapport and understanding in the community,
(4) to carry out participatory disaster risk assessment and management,
(5) community-based disaster risk management planning, (6) commu-
nity managed implementation and (7) participatory monitoring and
evaluation [20,21]. Outcome indicators of CBDRM are the creation of
(1) community-based organization (CBO) or community disaster risk
management organization (CDRMO), (2) community disaster risk re-
duction fund, (3) community hazard, vulnerability, capacity map
(HVCM), (4) community disaster risk management plan, (5) CBO or
CDRMO training system, (6) community drills system, (7) community
learning system and (8) community early warning system [20].
CBDRM is essentially a bottom-up process. It is important to re-
cognize that the planning process for CBDRM is not just a mechanical
set of actions. A common requirement across all processes is a shared
set of values and convictions in the community. The focus of the ex-
ercise should be on realizing a planning process as a tool for risk re-
duction, preparedness and response rather than on the production of
planning documents. Participatory process here refer to community
participation in disaster risk reduction through the adoption of specific
policies, the promotion of networking, the strategic management of
200
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 (2018) 199–213
volunteer resources, the attribution of roles and responsibilities, and the
delegation and provision of the necessary authority and resources [20].
CBDRM and CBDRR are meant to transform passivity and powerlessness
into action and resilience [27].
Kumara [14] and Parkash [32] discussed tools for CBDRM that are
applicable in Asian contexts. A CBDRM program should emphasize the
eventual institutionalization of CBDRM into policy, planning and im-
plementation; implementation of innovative program to explore new
dimensions in CBDRM practice; development of frameworks and tools
to support the work of decision-makers and practitioners; development
of new training tools to enhance the capacity of practitioners; and
continued support to the regional entities for promoting CBDRM prac-
tices [14]. There are a number of tools available based on local ex-
periences that can be used by CBDRM practitioners in reducing disaster
risks. These include different thematic areas such as participatory risk
assessment, risk reduction planning, critical guidelines on CBDRM, in-
volvement of media in risk reduction, etc. [14] However, limited
knowledge on the use of CBDRM tools in CBDRM and rural develop-
ment programs is still a challenge
The inception of the idea that CBDRM would be rational and ben-
eficial for society led to development of a suitable methodology for use
by the community in its aim to reduce disaster risks [32]. Parkash [32]
stated that although several scientific and technological methodologies
exist for hazard identification, assessment, monitoring and control; yet
based on the Indian experience the community is barely involved in or
benefited by their application [32]. Therefore, an attempt has been
made to involve and use the community’s [32] experiences and
knowledge in dealing with the issues of disaster assessment and man-
agement while applying scientific principles of disaster management in
a broader sense.
2.2. Social resilience
In addition to participation, to enable communities to cope with
disasters, they should also be resilient. Resilience is defined as “the
ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist,
absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects
of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including the preservation
and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions through
risk management” [29]. The resilience has been discussed in social,
economic, institutional, built, and natural aspects [31]. Focusing on
CBDRM, social resilience is a key. Social resilience is referred to as “a
social unit or a group to collectively cope with or respond to external
stresses and disturbances resulting from social, political, and environ-
mental changes” [30].
In the case of New Zealand [31] social resilience from the view
point of disaster researchers, emergency management practitioners and
policy makers can have two dimensions each one with corresponding
attributes as depicted in Table 1. Each attribute is important to promote
resilience in CBDRM. Although their focus comes from specialists’ re-
sponses in New Zealand, these set of comprehensive attributes could be
applied to other areas as they discuss disasters in general and not
limited in New Zealand contexts though they work for New Zealand.
This study applies their social resilience dimensions and attributes for
CBDRM assessment in Thailand.
2.3. Gaming simulation (GS)
For empowering and raising awareness of disaster mitigation among
community residents and students, disaster mitigation games have been
utilized (such as UNISDR [46]). A game with players’ active partici-
pation followed by feedback play an important mediation role for
learning in disaster education [47]. To discuss games and its application
for social problem solving, it is important to summarize their classifi-
cation.
The history of games can be traced back to the prehistoric times
P. Tanwattana, Y. Toyoda
Table 1
Social Resilience Dimensions and Attributes.
Source: Kwok, et al. (2016) [31]
Social Resilience Social Resilience Attribute
Dimension
Cognitive Adaptability - ability to embrace change
Collective efficacy
Community inclusiveness
Connectedness between networks
Leadership
Sense of community and attachment
Shared community beliefs and values
Social Support
Structural Access to economic resources
Community (and individual) preparedness
Democratic and collaborative decision-making and
problem-solving policies and processes
Disaster management planning
Diversity of skills and trained personnel
Knowledge of community assets and beliefs
Knowledge of risks and hazard consequences
Robust community spaces and amenities
Social networks
[48], however, popularity in scholarship of the utility of games for
social problem solving came about when the term “serious game” was
coined as a game with purposes of more than entertainment value.
Although criticism to this term had been raised (such as [49]), studies
on “serious game” proliferated from business administration to urban
planning, and disaster education. In serious game, it is important to
distinguish between “gamification” and “gaming simulation (GS).” The
former applies game principles such as cooperation and competition to
real life, attaining outcomes that are difficult to accomplish and/or are
otherwise unattainable. On the other hand, GS which this study applied
for CBDRM consists of bringing players into game worlds and to let
them experience various alternatives or what otherwise cannot or
hardly be realized in the real world. Players then go back to the real
world and reflect what they experienced in the game in terms of the
different outcomes based on different hypothetical choices and com-
pare those with their experiences and situations in the real world to
learn about possibilities that result either in improvement or worsening
in outcomes.
GS is defined as a gestalt communication mode, a future’s language
which combines a game-specific language and appropriate commu-
nication technologies with the multilogue interaction pattern. Duke
[33] states that “…(GS), properly conceived and employed, is a pow-
erful tool both for conveying gestalt and for explaining alternative si-
tuation that could not otherwise be managed ... it is not predictive
device; it is particularly useful for guiding speculation about future
circumstances”. GS has series of scenarios depicting possible course of
actions. Various decision makers are represented by humans acting out
significant roles. By acting out “what if’ situations, alternative futures
can be explored [33]. This importance is iterated by Crookall [50] and
some game simulations based on this concept were developed, such as
Toyoda, et al. (2014) [24] for evacuation after earthquake and for
public crisis management [51].
GS includes an operating model of central features of real or pro-
posed systems or processes. Scenarios are developed, roles are defined
in interacting systems, and players1 are given goals, resources, and
rules. Then, they work out the simulations, trying out alternative roles
and strategies within the system constraints defined [34]. The GS
methodology is a merger or hybrid of two distinct techniques: gaming
and simulation. Simulation is the attempt to abstract and reproduce the
1
This study differentiates the usage of players and participants. The former is for
people with roles who are playing GS, while the latter simply means people participate in
GS.
201
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 (2018) 199–213
central features of a complex system for the purpose of understanding,
experimenting with, and predicting the behavior of the system. Game is
a set of activities performed by groups of people where a set of rules or
conventions constrains or defines the limits of activity. The rules
themselves may be dynamic and, therefore, subject to change during
the play of the game. Generally, people playing roles perform the set of
tasks suggested by the rules [35].
Rizzi [36] describes games as virtual environments in which con-
tents consist of simulation and transformation of real or imaginary
urban system that serve as means of information, communication, and
participation. GS has had its ups and downs in relation to various dis-
ciplines. Its spread and use as an educational tool have consolidated
over time as can be especially witnessed in the field of environmental
education. It is a gestalt communication in which the model of reality,
i.e. the simulation, is put into operation using the rules of the game
which are activated by the decisions of the players taking different roles
[36].
Elements of GS are; (a) People playing roles not necessarily corre-
sponding to those they assume in the real-life situation; (b) a scenario
defining a problem area or a given ‘state of the system’; (c) an ac-
counting system designed to record such decisions and events together
with their consequences, as are taken or occur during play; and (d)
some algorithm (s) (implicit or explicit) which indicate (s) operating
procedures for playing and controlling the exercise. The scenario in a
GS exercise defines the situation presented to the players at the start of
the exercise. It provides information before, during and after GS such as
written report, diagram, maps, physical models, statistical information
and financial statements [37].
Rizzi [36] discussed that good GS will trigger a series of dynamic
and education process and the following results:
– active involvement of the participants in the learning/education
process, with a greater emphasis on the self-guided discovery being
placed on giving and receiving opportunities
– the experience of making decisions in a realistic environment with
rapid and repeated feedback, which indicate the consequences of
the player’s action as well as the adequacy of their performance
– promoting various environment conditions, e.g. experimenting with
student’s opportunities to use self-managed and self-monitored
procedures when the role of a reviewer or the guidance of a teacher
is partially suppressed
– different points of view achieved by differing combinations of
means, methods and material, which recall an entire spectrum of
knowledge, revision and visual and verbal manipulation.
In sum, GS can provide experience of disasters to players trying
different roles (such as playing a role of a resident) in a comprehensive
manner in a virtual (or game) world where they can learn lessons on
their own (self-guided) (simulation with output and feedback based on
players’ decisions), and they can discuss how to improve the end results
from the viewpoints of their roles in debriefing after the game as well as
in the game. GS is a relatively new methodology in academic quarters,
and as is typical of many such enterprises, research lags behind the
innovation. Although numerous claims are made for the efficacy of GS
for cognitive, affective and behavioral learning, the empirical status of
these claims is fairly low [34]. This research attempts to fill in the gaps
by designing and creating a GS prototype for local application in
CBDRM.
3. Significance of problem
Basically, Thai communities regularly gather as a group in the
Muban (village/ community) level under local government’s munici-
pality or sub-district administration organization. The local govern-
ments arrange a kind of community participation, such as meetings,
activities, gatherings for providing information, etc. However, these are
P. Tanwattana, Y. Toyoda
not mainly for strengthening the community or building the commu-
nity’s readiness for disaster risk management.
The normal system of CBDRM in Thailand can be found through
actions initiated by government sector. The Department of Disaster
Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM), Ministry of Interior is the govern-
ment’s focal point for all activities related to disaster prevention and
mitigation in Thailand. The DDPM launched CBDRM following the
Strategic National Action Plan (SNAP) on Disaster Risk Reduction 2010
– 2019 [17]. Based on SNAP, CBDRM is one of the strategies for disaster
prevention and mitigation. The outcome indicators of CBDRM in SNAP
are expanded implementation of CBDRM and the launching of CBDRM
training for communities. In 2016, DDPM reported 11,367 villages out
of a total of 74,965 villages have undergone CBDRM capacity building
since 2004 [18]. Nevertheless, DDPM Strategy Plan 2012–2016 [19]
has not emphasized CBDRM as a main strategy. CBDRM is a tiny part of
preparedness activity and community is not a main participant in
DDPM planning and activities. However, CBDRM is essentially a
bottom-up process where the people are at the heart of decision making
and implementation. For this reason, training by DDPM cannot com-
plete the CBDRM process indicators. The CBDRM promoted by DDPM
does not cover all of outcome indicators of CBDRM (i.e., establish
community disaster risk management organization (CDRMO), com-
munity disaster risk reduction fund, community hazard, vulnerability,
capacity map (HVCM), community disaster risk management plan, etc.)
such as the ones defined by The Asian Disaster Preparedness Center
(ADPC) [20].
As essentially a bottom-up process [20,21], Duke [22] stated that
“…there is a communication barrier that is difficult to bridge: profes-
sionals who create the plans have different mindsets than the decision-
maker who must act on the recommendations. Whereas planners are
guided by professional standards, elected officials must be responsive to
the voters whose worldview tends to be limited. A bottom-up form of
communication is required. The societal need for improved decision-
making in urban environments is greater than ever. This is where GS
fills a useful niche. Carefully designed games can play an increasing
important role in this context”. GS has evolved into a form of human
communication practice focused on situations that are symbolically
represented in a relatively safe context.
GS that contains both game and simulation functions is an effective
tool for community-based disaster reduction training. GS for commu-
nity-based disaster reduction has a great deal in common with action
learning as it allows local community participants to face challenges
that do not have any specific solutions [23]. In Japan, known for its
long experience in coping with disasters, GS practices are implemented
to promote CBDRM [24]. GS in CBDRM presents a new challenge and
learning opportunity for Thailand especially for local communities fa-
cing more severe disaster risk. Experiences or lessons learnt in com-
munities in some countries can be embedded in GS design specifically
suited for the particularities of the local context. This research thus
examines whether GS contributions in building community-based dis-
aster risk management based on experiences from Japanese commu-
nities can be transferred and applied to Thai communities.
4. Methodology
This research’s approach is Participatory Action Research (PAR)
where communities engage in a process of building CBDRM [20,21] are
partners in the research. The engagement started from March 2014 to
December 2016 (34 months) in three flood-prone communities in Nan
town municipality2 in Thailand. Three communities were chosen as
sampling groups of Thai flood prone communities in an upstream
2
Town-municipality (Thesaban mueang) is a municipality to qualify as a town. It ei-
ther needs to be a provincial capital, or have a population of at least 10,000 and sufficient
income to cover the tasks of town (The Thesaban Organization Act of 2000).
202
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 (2018) 199–213
province based on the following categories; success case, on-going case
and non-active case on building CBDRM. The empirical study used
primary data from interviews; Mayor, members of municipal council,
three community leaders and 49 community members. Meetings and
focus group discussions were conducted several times during the three
years of CBDRM’s process (launch by researchers and partners; com-
munities and municipality). Especially, workshops on GS were initiated
(during 2014 and 2015) in those three communities as a tool for
building community understanding on CBDRM. The conduct of parti-
cipatory observation during GS were documented by the game’s mod-
erator and facilitator who observed the players decision/reaction and
contributions in the discussion during the workshops. Secondary data
were also reviewed such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction 2015–2030, governmental policies, national plans, pro-
vincial plans, local government plans such as Disaster Mitigation and
Prevention Plan of Nan Town Municipality, Nan Province, community
plans for Disaster Mitigation and Prevention, NGO plans such as GIZ’s
Climate Change Policy Project in Nan Province [25], reports, websites
and publications of related organizations.
5. Case studies
One of the most important tributaries of the Chao Phraya River
Basin is ‘Nan River’. It contributes more than 45% of water to Queen
Sirikit Dam and Chao Phraya River. Nan province, located in an up-
stream area of Chao Phraya Basin is faced with the prospect of sig-
nificant risk of floods. Rapid urbanization and deforestation in Nan
province cause landslides and flash floods in its upstream areas.
Floodwaters then flow downstream from the overflowing Nan River. Its
main urban area, Nan town municipality (the Nan old town) is vul-
nerable to annual flooding. Of the 33 urban communities in Nan town
municipality; three of these were identified as flood prone areas
(Fig. 1).
Nan Province (479,482 population as of 2016) has a long history of
flood disasters (forest floods/flash floods). Heavy rains caused the rivers
to overflow and inundate community areas and farmlands. Some areas
could not be reached because of a 2–3 m-deep flood. Those living in
risky areas have been urged to look out for warning signs of flash
floods, i.e., tap water becoming muddy and heavy downpours con-
tinuing for six hours.
Nan Town Municipality is an urban area and the major economic
district of Nan Province located along Nan River. The city allows pas-
sage of the runoff from rain that drains from the west side of the city
into the river. The geographical features in the upper northern part and
surrounding areas of Nan Town Municipality consist of high steep
forested mountains and partial plains. During continuous heavy rain-
falls from tropical depressions or storms, the level of water in Nan River
rapidly rises. Therefore, precise predictions for disaster warnings that
provide instant and thoroughly accessible information are highly im-
portant as they are people’s tools for self-preparations toward im-
pending floods. Nan Town Municipality consists of 33 urban commu-
nities (20,494 population as of 2016). The area considered as the “old
town” is rich in cultural heritage with various historical buildings such
as temple, palace, ancient wall, etc. The case study for the research is
based on three urban communities located in a flood-prone area in Nan
Town Municipality (Fig. 2).
6. Designing GS prototype
6.1. Scenario from Japanese case
To design GS, we first conducted a workshop at one of the flood
prone areas, Sonobe District in Nantan City, Kyoto Prefecture, Japan, in
2014. In 2013, some parts of Kyoto Prefecture were faced with un-
precedented floods during typhoon “Man-yi” such as Arashiyama
District, a famous tourism destination. Sonobe District is also expected
P. Tanwattana, Y. Toyoda International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 (2018) 199–213

Fig. 1. Extreme flood in 2011, Nan Town Municipality, Nan

A: Nan River overflowed in 2011 B: Water level on pillar house in Nan Town
Province, Thailand.
A: Nan Municipality, 2011 and B: Taken in 2014

Fig. 2. Location of study area.

Tanwattana, 2014 [26]

Fig. 3. Flood hazard map of the center of Sonobe

Legend
District.
Nantan City (2009) [38]
Expected inundation level

Emergency shelter
Temporary evacuation shelter
Special evacuation shelter
Wider evacuation site
Temporary evacuation site
Steep slope risk area
Mud-slide hazard area
City Hall
Hospital
Policy Station
Fire Station
Main Street
River expected to flood

to get flooded according to its flood hazard map (Fig. 3). However,
much of the areas of Sonobe have succeeded to prevent flood during
typhoon Man-Yi, mainly through “hard measures” such as dykes. The
hard measure so “soft measures” for flood management did not appear
in response to flood. During the workshop, the researchers and students
learned about preparation of hard and soft measures taken in Sonobe
District and came up with original ideas and policy suggestions for
flood risk management. Ideas are summarized in Table 2.
One of the lessons learnt was how community works and prepares
for flood as a group, ‘Jishu-bosai-soshiki’ or ‘Jishubo’ for short
(autonomous organization for disaster reduction or voluntary disaster
preparedness organization) that plays a crucial role in disaster risk re-
duction. Jishubo is a key actor to promote CBDRM by holding events
such as disaster trainings for residents and prepare community systems
to cope with disaster such as evacuation, and crisis management. Based
on such lessons learned by the researchers and students in the work-
shop, the authors developed the Community Cooperation Game (CCG).
CCG3 for Disaster Management is a gaming simulation (GS) for
3
The term ‘CCG’ is used when discussing CCG specific matters while GS is used when

203
P. Tanwattana, Y. Toyoda
Table 2
Activity Cards.
Source: Tanwattana, 2015 [43]
P Preparedness D Emergency response
(Before flooding) (During the flood)
P1 Food/water/Medicine D1 Evacuate
P2 Boat/life vest D2 Emergency Center
P3 Flashlight/Rope/Boot D3 Volunteer
P4 Move stuff D4 Coordinating for outside support
P5 Sand Bag D5 Relocate to other area
P6 Updating & sharing information
P7 Radio walkie talkie
P8 Dam/ Dyke
P9 Warning announcement
building Community-Based Disaster Risk management (CBDRM). The
geography of Sonobe district consists of a town along the Sonobe River
that is situated within a basin that is susceptible to flooding under ex-
treme rain and strong typhoons. According to a flood hazard map, some
parts of this area are expected to inundate as depicted in Fig. 3. This
character is relevant to a town along Chao Praya River Basin in Thai-
land and many other countries in the world. Since a variety of flood
scenarios can be imagined, CCG adopted some basic flood scenarios
that includes the range from gradual to sudden inundation, and takes
into consideration the residents knowledge about flood management.
Zoning map, water level and management solutions of Sonobe case
were included as scenarios and materials in the design of the CCG.
The design process of the CCG purposely included a participatory
approach by inviting students, scholars, officers and representatives
from community to dialogue and get feedback on the prototype of
CCG’s flow, scenarios and materials. The final version of the CCG pro-
totype had been tested with pilot groups; representative from local
communities, students and academics in Thailand. The results from the
pilot test were a deeper understanding of the critical role of players on
CCG’s scenarios, flow, materials and in debriefing. There were also
some comments and recommendations on; size of materials and group
of stakeholders. All of these were considered in the redesign of CCG to
fit the context of Thailand.
7. Community cooperation game (CCG) for disaster management
The objectives of CCG are to (1) encourage community based flood
disaster management approach, (2) promote cooperation between local
community and local government and (3) provide opportunity for
mutual decision making of multi stakeholders on disaster management.
The CCG is designed to include (1) Scenarios which is designed based on
flooding from overflowing Rivers, (2) Roles which represent groups of
stakeholder and activity options, and (3) Rules which control the flow of
the game, conditions for players and debriefing. To play the game, CCG
needs at least eight players (based on eight roles-playing), one mod-
erator and one facilitator. The game runs by activity based/ interactive
workshop. It takes at least 2 h to complete all stages.
7.1. Scenarios of CCG
CCG simulates different scenarios in flood affected areas. A board is
used in the CCG to show a map of flood risk area (high flood risk zone
= red, medium flood risk zone = orange and low flood risk zone =
yellow zone). Scenarios of the CCG are illustrated on the map of flood
affected zones (scenario I = normal situation, scenario II = red zone
flooded, scenario III = all zone flooded and scenario IV = after flood
(Fig. 4). A variety of scenarios could be imagined but as the game was
(footnote continued)
expanding the discussion to general matters related to GS, hereafter.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 (2018) 199–213
A Prevention & mitigation
(After Flooding)
A1 Establish community organization for disaster management and formulate community plan
A2 Establish community fund/ cooperative
A3 House reconstruction
A4 Flood risk Sign
A5 Training
A6 Formulate municipal plan for disaster management
A7 Setting staff gauge in community
applied to a community with relatively less knowledge about flood
management, basic scenarios were adopted: gradual and sudden flood.
7.2. Roles in CCG
The roles played in CCG consist of 8 roles; mayor, volunteers,
community leaders and community members of three zones (Fig. 5).
Those role-play reflects stakeholders in a city. One role-playing game
session can compose of several participants. Cooperation of different
stakeholders in decision-making is a key to success of community based
approach [44]. Solutions for players that represent their decisions are
represented by ‘activity cards’ (Table 2 and Fig. 5) that they can select
from. These cards contain various disaster management options in areas
covering preparedness, emergency response and prevention &
mitigation given the Thai context of priority responses in flood event
[45]. Each player can choose their decisions or responses from these
‘activity cards’.
7.3. Rules of CCG
The rule of CCG requires all players to cooperate for flood disaster
risk management as their goal. The moderator will ask players to follow
the game’s flow (Table 3). The CCG starts by introducing rules and
materials. There are two rounds of flood simulation before debriefing.
7.4. Debriefing of CCG
The debriefing of the CCG consists of a discussion by players led by
a moderator who also provides feedback on card selection. The mean-
ings behind each rule of the GS are reiterated that: (1) zoning of flood
risk levels and each scenario of flooded areas aim at encouraging
community preparedness, understanding flood risk identification and
risk communication, (2) role play which represents stakeholders is for
promoting cooperation and participation, (3) activity cards are for
supporting community learning process for flood disaster management
cycle and simulated solutions for flood risk management, (4) selecting
cards is a process to promote mutual decision making, cooperation and
information sharing, (5) placing cards on the scenarios board is an
opportunity for mutual decision making for resource sharing by bal-
ancing between individual, household and community benefit, and (6)
extra activity cards is a stage for discussing future solutions and a si-
mulation of planning, plan implementation for preparedness and ma-
jority decision making.
The CCG was applied to different target groups; local communities
in Thailand; university students in Thailand and Japan; elementary,
junior high school and high school students in Thailand [43]. The re-
sults from CCG workshops reflect significant outcomes and learnings for
target groups and GS designers [43]. The CCG prototype [43] will be
redeveloped, applied and generalized as a training mechanism for
practitioners and higher education in further study. This paper studies
the case of local communities in Thailand.
204
P. Tanwattana, Y. Toyoda International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 (2018) 199–213

Legend A - Scenario I: Normal Situation B - Scenario II: Red Zone Flooded

No Flood Risk

Low Risk

Medium Risk

High Risk

River C - Scenario III: All Zone Flooded D - Scenario IV: After Flood
Flood
Simulation

Fig. 4. CCG Scenarios.

Tanwattana, 2015 [43]

8. Research results: applying CCG on CBDRM case studies
CCG was applied to three flood prone communities in Thailand as
sampling groups to examine CBDRM practices. The case studies are
Phumin-Talee, Payaphoo and Puang Phayom communities, all flood-
prone communities in Nan Town Municipality. The case studies found
different levels of practices;
(1) Success: CBDRM system was embodied and CDRMO was orga-
nized and implemented in Phumin-Talee community after flood in
2006. For their successful work the community received the dis-
tinction of having best practice of community safety on disaster
management by the World Health Organization (WHO). A CCG
workshop was launched in this community in 2014 by partnership
between the community and researcher team [43]; 6 years after they
established CDRMO. The participants of the initial workshop were
composed of a community leader, sub-leader, volunteer, community
members who have much experience on flood disaster management
since 2006 [39,40,43]. They easily understood GS materials,
scenarios, and activity cards based on their background experiences
as CDRMO. Their decision making in the GS world reflected their
experiences in their practice of CBDRM and CDRMO in the real
world. Fig. 6A shows players of success case discussing flood risk
solutions during a CCG workshop in 2014. Fig. 6B1 shows flood risk
identification chart which were using for risk map-making during a
process of building CBDRM [26]. Fig. 6B2 shows completed flood
risk map of the success case; one of the outcomes from building
CBDRM [26].
(2) On-going: CBDRM system has started and CDRMO was formed in
Payaphoo community in 2016 with the following achievements: (a)
community organization for disaster management was formed, (b)
community zoning was designed and implemented, (c) emergency
center was designed, (d) community plans were enacted, (e) com-
munity fund group was established and its regulations formulated,
and (f) community data (flood risk map, flood risk sign, etc.) was
collected and published [39]. A CCG workshop was initiated in this
community by partnership between the community and researcher

Fig. 5. CCG materials.

Tanwattana, 2015 [43]

205
P. Tanwattana, Y. Toyoda International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 (2018) 199–213

Table 3
CCG flow.
Source: Tanwattana, 2015 [43]

CCG flow (Round one)

CCG flow (Round two)

(continued on next page)

206
P. Tanwattana, Y. Toyoda
Table 3 (continued)
team in 2015 [40]; before their staring a process of CBDRM in their
community. The participants consisted of community leader and
community members who had experiences in flood disaster but no
experience on CBDRM. They had intuitive understanding of GS
materials, scenarios, and activity cards based on their background
experiences as flood victims. Their decision making in the GS world
reflected their readiness for CBDRM in the real world [43]. Fig. 7A
shows players of on-going case choosing and placing flood risk so-
lutions (activity cards) on the scenario’s map during CCG workshop.
Fig. 7B1 shows name list of CDRMO of Payaphoo community while
Fig. 7B2 shows flood risk map of the on-going case; one of the
achievements of CDRMO members. Both 7B1 and 7B2 are the direct
outcomes from the process of building CBDRM.
(3) Non-active: A CBDRM system could not be realized therefore
CDRMO could not be organized in Puang Phayom community. This
was because of two main reasons; lack of leadership and participa-
tion which are core concepts of CBDRM. However, through an in-
complete process of CBDRM, community members were encouraged
207
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 (2018) 199–213
to participate in some activities on disaster management such as
map making, risk assessment, meeting, GS workshop, etc. Therefore,
their awareness had been raised through these processes [40]. In-
formation on disaster risk had been provided in the community in
2014 [26]. However, it was in the form of university support [26],
not from their self-management. For this reason, this non-active case
needed other mechanisms to operate CBDRM in practice. A CCG
workshop was launched in this community by researcher team in
2014 [26,43] before promoting a process of CBDRM in this com-
munity. Participants included community leader and community
members who had experiences in flood disaster but no experience
on CBDRM. They understood GS materials, scenarios, and activity
cards based on their background experiences as flood victims. Their
decision making in the GS world reflects their understanding of
CBDRM. However, although the CCG has encouraged their knowl-
edge on CBDRM, an experience in GS is not enough to operate
CBDRM in the real world. In a future study, games with more precise
techniques will be arranged. (Fig. 8 and 9)
P. Tanwattana, Y. Toyoda
Fig. 6. Success case of CBDRM.
A: taken in June 2014 and B1-2: Tanwattana, 2014 [26]
The results of the CCG workshop from the three case studies were
observed by the game’s facilitator using a checklist form for monitoring
(Fig. 10) and a voice recorder to record a conversation/opinion/dis-
cussion of all participants. All activity cards were coded (such as P1, D1,
A1, etc.). All cards placing by each role-player in each scenario will be
documented in the form.
The results of the CCG workshop from three case studies shown in
Table 4 demonstrate that participants gained new knowledge about
CBDRM and the importance of its components. Players’ understanding
of CBDRM was measured through the selection of following activity
cards; (A1) Establish community organization for disaster management
and formulate community plan, (A2) Establish community fund/co-
operative, (A3) House reconstruction, (A4) Flood risk sign, (A5)
Training, (A6) Formulate municipal plan for disaster management and
(A7) Setting staff gauge in community, all of which compose important
activities in CBDRM among others. In the success case of CBDRM, those
cards were selected in the round one and continued in round two. On
the other hand, players from on-going case and non-active case of
CBDRM did not select those cards in round one. However, in round two,
both cases selected cards (A1, A2, A4, A5, A6 and A7) which reflect that
they understood the importance of CBDRM. This shows the effective-
ness of CCG in building community understanding of CBDRM through
GS in these communities. This new knowledge is expected to reveal
itself in more effective actions in the future event of disaster.
Results of CCG workshop from three case studies in Table 5 reflect
community cooperation through selecting and placing activity cards to
support other players. It reveals further willingness to participate and
share resources among players.
In the first round of the successful case, a player in red zone selected
‘flood risk sign’ (A4 card) for other players in order to notify flood risk.
A player in orange zone selected ‘warning announcement’ (P9 card) to
alert other players of the need for preparation. A player from yellow
208
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 (2018) 199–213
zone selected ‘sand bag’ (P5 card) to provide emergency walk way for
other players. However, in the second round, there is no card placing
for other zones because they had been discussed and shared informa-
tion and resources. In the first round, they didn’t discuss with other role
players; they simply put the card for other players naturally in an act of
spontaneous cooperation. In the second round, they discussed (all role-
players plan together), so that they put the card this time for a reason
(following their plan reached after discussion). Therefore, a new kind of
cooperation was achieved through mutual decision making that re-
sulted in selecting and placing cards in round two after the experience
gained in round one. The first round may be characterized as embo-
died/ spontaneous cooperation while the second round is planned/
systematized/ managed cooperation.
Results from the first round of the on-going case revealed co-
operation and sharing. Players in the red zone selected ‘emergency
center’ (D2 card) and ‘warning announcement’ (P9 card) for all players
to evacuate to a safe place. A player in orange zone selected ‘Boat/life
vest’ (P2 card) and ‘warning announcement’ (P9 card) for other players.
A player from yellow zone selected ‘emergency center’ (D2 card) and
‘Boat/life vest’ (P2 card) for other players, especially for the elder as
vulnerable groups. Round two of on-going case revealed similar results
to the successful case. Players from on-going case did not select the
cards for other players in the second round because they had already
cooperated in response to each of the scenarios by mutual under-
standing. They discussed among themselves, select cards, where to
place (zones) and when (scenarios) to place based on each role. They
placed activity card not for specific role but for the whole community.
In other word, dependency (one-way help) is not found in the second
round; instead mutual-help began to emerge.
By contrast, the case of non-active, round one and two revealed
cooperation and sharing among players but more on the individual
level. A red zone player selected ‘flood risk sign’ (A4 card) and ‘Radio
P. Tanwattana, Y. Toyoda
Fig. 7. Playing CCG in on-going case of CBDRM.
By author, taken in June 2015 and Tanwattana, 2016 [39]
walkie talkie’ (P7 card) for other players. An orange zone player se-
lected ‘Food/water/Medicine’ (P1 card) for red zone players. A player
from yellow zone selected ‘emergency center’ (D2 card) and ‘be a vo-
lunteer’ (D3 card) for all zone players. Activity cards chosen by non-
active case players are cards that reflect personal/household support
than community support. Based on players’ discussion, the reasons for
selecting these cards indicate more concern is placed on individual
support based on the belief that each household can survive by them-
selves if they are well prepared or undertake self-help. For example,
Radio walkie talkie’ (P7 card), ‘Food/water/Medicine’ (P1 card) and ‘be
a volunteer’ (D3 card) are considered individualistic. It reveals co-
operation for individual survival in the community.
209
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 (2018) 199–213
9. Discussion
This section discusses two main contributions of CCG on building
CBDRM process based on empirical case studies in Thailand; (1) the GS
reflected the real world situation of CBDRM and; (2) the GS revealed
actual ‘social resilience’ embodied in the communities. The first dis-
cussion is important to verify that players behave the same way as in
the real world even though CCG is just a game. Unless otherwise, what
happened in CCG could be irrelevant in real life and reflection on the
events in the game compared to reality would lead to nowhere in im-
proving future resilience in their communities.
9.1. Real world reflection
The analysis of results from CCG workshop revealed differences in
Fig. 8. Playing CCG in non-active case of CBDRM.
By author, taken in August 2014
P. Tanwattana, Y. Toyoda
Success: Phumin-Talee Community
• CBDRM system was established
• CDRMO was organized and implemented
On-going: Payaphoo Community
• CBDRM system has started
• CDRMO was formed
Non-active: Puang Phayom Community
• CBDRM system could not be operated
• CDRMO cannot be organized
Fig. 10. Monitoring form.
Tanwattana, 2015 [43]. Remarks: Sc1-4 = scenarios of the CCG (Fig. 4). P1-P9, D1-D5 and A1-A7 = code of activity cards (Table 2). EX = extra cards (Table 3)
background experiences of players among three levels of CBDRM
practices; successful case, on-going case and non-active case. These
differences influenced their decision making in GS. Decision making by
players from these three case studies showed the relevance of the CCG
in reflecting real world situations. Two kinds of observations can be
made on the correspondence of GS to the real world experience of
disasters; these are primarily influenced by (1) background experiences
on CBDRM of communities and, (2) willingness to cooperate by com-
munity players, a willingness which is related to (1) (Table 6).
Table 6 shows that participants from successful case have more
knowledge from previous experiences and better understanding of
CBDRM than on-going case and non-active case. Successful case’s
players prioritized the importance of organization, plan, grouping as a
cooperative and disaster risk information sharing in their selection of
activity cards. On the other hand, in the GS found no activity cards were
selected related to CBDRM from on-going case and non-active case in
round one of the CCG. However, in round two, the GS contributed in
building better understanding on the importance of CBDRM as shown
210
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 (2018) 199–213
Fig. 9. Applying CCG on CBDRM Case Studies.
Tanwattana, 2014 [26] and Tanwattana, 2016 [39]
by selection of activity cards in Table 3. From the discussion among
players from on-going case and non-active case, players have intuitive
ideas to build CBDRM in their real world communities. However, in the
non-active case these ideas were not implemented because of leadership
issues. The CCG can offer potential solutions in the non-active case by
(1) running the game again with active person/change agent taking
part with non-active members, (2) bringing members from success case
of CBDRM to play together as mentor to members from non-active case,
(3) creating some community activity/project implementation in the
real world that comes from a CCG initiative with support/cooperation
from external partners outside non-active community such as school,
university, NGOs, etc. Additional techniques/processes/materials might
be encouraged to support lagging communities in the real world by
opening the stage for collaboration with other partners.
Not only CBDRM had been promoted by the CCG but willingness to
cooperate among community players was encouraged by the group
process. Community cooperation is a key factor in disaster management
[8–16,20,21,26–28,30–32,39–41] hence; it is a key concept of CCG.
P. Tanwattana, Y. Toyoda International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 (2018) 199–213

Table 4 that were found during the conduct of the CCG. Decision making and
Results on decision making of CCG players reflect CBDRM. other activities undertaken by the players were categorized into social
Source: By authors from applied CCG on; June 2014, August 2014 and June 2015.
resilience attributes (the left and center columns). Process indicators of
Remark: Activity card number index in Table 2
CBDRM were also identified (the right column). The process indicators
Role Success case On-going Non-active case numbered (1), (2) and (7) are out of the scope of the CCG as they are
case related with the start of projects (such as choosing communities, etc.)
and evaluating projects.
Round One
Mayor A6, A5 None None Through participation in the CCG, players acquired “Knowledge of
Volunteer A1-A4, A6 risk and hazard consequence”, one of the social resilience attributes. For
Red zone leader A2,A4,A6 CBDRM to proceed, residents should understand risk identification
Red zone Member None chart (Fig. 6:B1), however, it is hard for practitioners to make the table
Orange zone leader A3-A5
understood by the residents though mere verbal instruction. In the CCG,
Orange zone member A1, A2, A7
Yellow zone leader None residents first knew where they live only individually, but through
Yellow zone member A1, A3, A5 playing the CCG, they started to understand different levels of risk af-
Round Two fecting whole groups of households depicted by red, orange and yellow
Mayor A3, A5 A5, A6 A5, A6
zones in the map and flood scenarios. The significance of this new
Volunteer A1, A5, A6 A3, A7 A2, A5
Red zone leader A3 A1, A3, A5 None understanding was clearly revealed in the map making process held
Red zone Member A2, A5 A4 A2 after the CCG. In the beginning of community activities, many residents
Orange zone leader A2-A5 A1, A4, A5, A6 A3 did not understand the risks in the red zone as they just know residents
Orange zone member A3, A7 A1-A6 None in this zone could receive compensation. However, after the CCG, they
Yellow zone leader A1, A2, A3, A5, A7 A1, A3 A1, A3, A5
perceived the risks and could identify risks in their own living areas
Yellow zone member A1-A5 A1 A4-A7
during the map making process. Moreover, they began to understand
the implications of disaster cycles. Previously, residents tend to be
Cooperation or willingness to cooperate was found among players of GS mainly aware of emergency events rather than the more important
in all three cases. This reflects the close networks of friendship and preparation phase as they believed preparation for disaster was solely
kinship in their real world community. In the GS world, willingness to the government’s task. Nevertheless, through the CCG, they recognized
cooperate among community players was shown by (a) selecting and the importance of prior preparation by themselves. Through the CCG
placing activity cards for/to support other players, and (b) mutual de- the participants acquired new knowledge about risk and hazard con-
cision making in selecting and placing cards in round two after ex- sequences.
periencing flood simulation from the CCG in round one. These suggest a Residents also became “Aware of importance of disaster management
tendency for cooperation, participation, networking and resource planning” by participating in GS. As mentioned above, selection of
sharing among players in the GS world. These tendencies also indicate CBDRM cards in round one varies according to the communities’ ex-
‘social resilience’ had been embodied at the community level out of the perience of CBDRM. The fact that the active community chose CBDRM
shared experience during disaster events, as elaborated in the next part. cards from round one and the non-active did not, demonstrates that the
The CCG experience therefore served to reinforce community CCG process through the GS reflects the real situation of CBDRM in the
practices during times of disaster by (a) building greater understanding communities as discussed in the previous section. Through GS, residents
of the importance of CBDRM in the community, (b) teaching about were able to understand that community collaborative activities is the
participatory disaster risk assessment and management and community core of disaster management planning.
managed implementation toward ‘Process Indicators of CBDRM’ by CCG also sheds light on “Shared community beliefs and values”,
ADPC [20,21]. These conditions are needed to increase motivation and “Social network, Collective efficacy”, and “Democratic and collaborative
commitment to build CBDRM. decision-making and problem solving policies and processes”. They were
two levels of collaboration: community members inside zones and be-
tween zones, and then community members and mayors. For the first
9.2. Social resilience level, players developed a newfound appreciation of the idea of colla-
boration such that players in yellow zones helped others in red zones or
Table 7 presents the connection between the process indicators of players in yellow zones set the emergency center, while players in red
CBDRM by ADPC [20,21] and social resilience attributes (Table 1) [31]

Table 5
Results on decision making of CCG players reflect community cooperation.
Source: By authors from applied CCG on; June, 2014, August, 2014 and June 2015. Remark: Activity card number index in Table 2

Role Success Case On-going Case Non-active Case

Round One
Red zone leader A4 for all citizen determination D2 for all Zones
A2 for all Zones Management P6 in Unflooded area (Green zones) for all flood victims
Red zone Member P9 for all Zones P7, A4 for all Zones
Orange zone leader P2 for flooded areas
Orange zone member P9 for all Zones Preparation P9 for all Zones P1 for Red Zone
Yellow zone leader P5 for all Zones transportation D2 for all Zones D3 for all Zones
P2 for all Zones; especially vulnerable groups as elder D2 for all Zones
Round Two
Red zone leader None None
Red zone Member D3 for all Zones
Orange zone leader (After discussion and mutual decision making among all zones) (After discussion andmutual decision making among all zones)
Orange zone member
Yellow zone leader P1 for all Zones
Yellow zone member

211
P. Tanwattana, Y. Toyoda International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 (2018) 199–213

Table 6
How the CCG reflects the real world.
Source: By authors

GS/Real world Successful case On-going case Non-active case

Real world – CBDRM system was embodied – CBDRM system has started – CBDRM system could not be implemented
– CDRMO was organized and implemented – CDRMO was formed – CDRMO cannot be organized
GS world Cards which promote CBDRM were selected in Cards which promote CBDRM were not selected in Cards which promote CBDRM were not selected in
round one and continued in round two in the round one. However, in round two of those cards round one. However, in round two those cards were
CCG. were selected with new understanding (see Table 3 selected, although less than on-going case (see Table 3
for clarity). for clarity).
How GS reflect CCG reflected background CCG builds understanding among players on the importance of CBDRM in the GS world as well as to the real
to real knowledge & experiences on CBDRM world
world

Table 7
Contributions of CCG based on social resilience attributes and process indicators of CBDRM.
Source: By authors following ADPC [20,21] and Kwok, et al. (2016) [31]

Social resilience attribute CCG experiences Process indicators of CBDRM

– Knowledge of risk and hazard consequence – Understanding risk identification table (3) build rapport and understanding the
– Understand disaster cycles community
(4) participatory disaster risk assessment
and management
(6) community managed implementation
– Aware of importance of disaster management planning – Selecting CBDRM cards (ex. Non-active community started to (3) build rapport and understanding in the
selected CBDRM from the round two) community
(5) community-based disaster risk
management planning
– Shared community beliefs and values – Collaboration in and between zones (3) build rapport and understanding in the
– Social network – Collaboration between community members and mayors (extra community
– Collective efficacy card) (4) participatory disaster risk assessment
– Democratic and collaborative decision-making and and management
problem solving policies and processes (5) community-based disaster risk
management planning
– Leadership – Player ‘mayor’ coordinating to achieve consensus (3) build rapport and understanding in the
community
(5) community-based disaster risk
management planning

zones prepared early warning systems to disseminate warning to other
areas. As to the second level, consensus in the CCG regarding choice for
extra activity card4 was achieved not only through the exchange and
sharing of ideas but also through collaborative decision making among
players to reduce risk.
“Leadership” was also cultivated in the player playing the role of
Mayor even though the participant was merely a resident in the real
world. Role play is an essential function of the GS by which participants
can experience different roles from their own and therefore enabling
them to acquire multi-viewpoints. In the case of the CCG, a player who
played the role as Mayor coordinated for consensus on extra activity
cards.
As mentioned above, CCG can cultivate social resilience by allowing
participants to experience almost all aspects of social resilience attri-
butes via the virtual or GS world. The main findings of this study
conclude that: 1) CCG contributes to achieving CBDRM process in-
dicators; and 2) GS serves as a valuable tool to build CBDRM process by
promoting social resilience through CCG in local communities in
Thailand (Table 7).
created as a prototype from simulated Japanese case study on flood
management and was applied in three flood prone communities in
Thailand. This study found that (1) the GS reflected the real world si-
tuations of case studies and influenced decision making of community
players on CBDRM, which is an essential aspect of learning for CBDRR;
(2) the CCG promoted cooperation within the community for disaster
risk management (DRM) and; (3) the GS promoted social resilience of
community. Moreover, this study strongly suggests that it is possible to
generalize the application of CCG prototype in vulnerable Thai local
communities around the country for building CBDRM.
Further research should be undertaken on demonstrating contribu-
tions and effects of GS in the actual processes of CBDRM in different
communities under a variety of scenarios, players’ level of under-
standings and experiences in flood management. Other research could
also be embarked upon to expand the CCG methodology to include
other hazards such as earthquake as another CCG focus to build com-
munity cooperation as it is a concern in disaster management in specific
places in Thailand.

10. Conclusion
This research aimed to build community-based disaster risk man-
agement (CBDRM) by using gaming simulation (GS) as a learning tool.
The GS named ‘community cooperation game’ (CCG) was designed and
4
In the round two, players are asked to arrive at consensus on two extra activity cards
(any activities initiated by the players) which will be led by the mayor and volunteers.
Acknowledgment
This research has been supported by (1) National Research Council
of Thailand, (2) the Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund of
Chulalongkorn University, (3) International Affairs and Global Network
of Chulalongkorn University, (4) Subsidy for Study and Research of the
Foundation for the Fusion of Science and Technology (FOST) and (5)
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage of
Ritsumeikan University. Thank you for support for all case studies to:

212
P. Tanwattana, Y. Toyoda
(1) Nantan City Government where Sonobe District is located and
community in Japan, (2) Nan town municipality; Mayor, member of
municipal council, Nan supporting staff and three community case
studies. This research could not have been done without the full support
of Prof. Paola Rizzi, Ms. Federica Pistis, Mr. Vincenzo De Martino, Prof.
Hidehiko Kanegae, Japanese and Thai students from the 1st
Collaborative Workshop 2014 between Ritsumeikan-Chulalongkorn
University entitled “Design Workshop for Preventing Natural Disaster
on Urban Cultural Heritage and Traditional Architecture” 19-27 April
2014 at Ritsumeikan University (Kinugasa Campus), Kyoto City, Japan.
Special thanks to Nan Wan Yen team; colleagues, research assistants
and students; for all the hard works and supports. Lastly, thanks for the
map of Nan Province from the Department of Geography GIS database
of the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University.
References
[1] S. Hungspreug, W. Khao-uppatum, S. Thanopanuwat, Flood management in Chao
Phraya river basin, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on The Chao
Phraya Delta: Historical Development, Dynamics and Challenges of Thailand’s Rice
Bowl, Bangkok, Thailand, December 12–15, pp. 293–312, 2000.
[2] M.M. Thi, L.N. Gunawardhana, S. Kazama, A comparison of historical land-use
change patterns and recommendations for flood plain developments in three delta
regions in Southeast Asia, Water Int. 37 (3) (2012) 218–235.
[3] The World Bank, Thai Flood: Overview Rapid Assessment for Resilient Recovery
and Reconstruction Planning. 〈http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/
677841468335414861/pdf/698220WP0v10P106011020120Box370022B.pdf〉
(Accessed 13 December 2016).
[4] P. Tanwattana, H. Murayama, Community planning and the policy process for re-
gional revitalization against disasters: thailand’s readiness and the Japanese ex-
perience, J. Policy Sci. 21 (2) (2014) 27–42.
[5] T. Roachanakanan, Floodways and Flood Prevention in Thailand: Reflections of the
Great Flood in 2011, in: Proceedings of the World Flood Protection, Response,
Recovery and Drawing up of Flood Risk Management Conference, Bangkok,
Thailand, September 12–13. 〈http://www.dpt.go.th/csp/images/stories/pdf/
disaster/FloodwaysPreventionThailand.pdf〉, 2012 (Accessed 5 August 2016).
[6] S. Koontanakulvong, Thailand floods 2001: Causes and future management system,
Society for Social Management Systems Internet Journal. 〈http://kutarr.lib.kochi-
tech.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10173/1021/1/sms12-4498.pdf〉 (Accessed 12
September 2016).
[7] N. Chanjirawuttikun, Flood Disaster Management in Thailand: Summary and Issues.
Policy Brief. Land Development Department. (in Thai) 〈http://prp.trf.or.th/trf-
policy-brief/〉 (Accessed 12 October 2016).
[8] N. Jukrkorn, H. Sachdev, O. Panya, Community-based flood risk management:
lessons learned from the 2011 flood in central Thailand, Flood Recovery Innov.
Response IV 184 (2014) 75–86, http://dx.doi.org/10.2495/FRIAR140071.
[9] The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. 〈http://www.unisdr.org/we/
inform/publications/43291〉 (Accessed 2 May 2016).
[10] R. Shaw, Overview of Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction, in: R. Shaw (Eds.
), Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction, in: L. William, J.R. Waugh (Eds.),
Community, Environment and Disaster Risk Management Book Series, vol. 10,
Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 3 – 17, 2012.
[11] K. Jahangiri, Y.O. Izadkhah, S.J. Tabibi, A comparative study on community-based
disaster management in selected countries and designing a model for Iran, Disaster
Prev. Manag. 20 (1) (2011) 82–94.
[12] R. Bajek, Y. Matsuda, N. Okada, Japan’s Jishu-bosai-soshiki community activities:
analysis of its role in participatory community disaster risk management, Nat.
Hazards 44 (2008) 281–292, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9107-4.
[13] M. Ishiwatari, Government Roles in Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction, in:
R. Shaw (Eds.), Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction, in: L. William, J.R.
Waugh (Eds.), Community, Environment and Disaster Risk Management Book
Series, vol. 10, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, . 19 – 33, 2012.
[14] S. Kumara, Use of community based disaster risk reduction tools in community
action; perspective from Asia, in: K. Miyake, R. Osti (Eds.), Forms of Community
Participation in Disaster Risk Management Practices, Nova Science Publishers, Inc,
New York, 2011, pp. 157–170.
[15] R. Shaw, K. Okazaki, Sustainable Community Based Disaster Management (CBDM)
Practices in Asia: a User’s Guide, United Nations Centre for Regional Development
(UNCRD) and Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office, Kobe, Japan,
2004〈http://lib.riskreductionafrica.org/bitstream/handle/123456789/593/4376.
Sustainable%20Community%20Based%20Disaster%20Management
%20(CBDM)%20Practices%20in%20Asia.%20A%20User's%20Guide.pdf?
sequence=1〉 (accessed 5 October 2016).
[16] A. Maskrey, Revisiting community-based disaster risk management, Environ.
Hazards 10 (2011) 42–52, http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.2011.0005.
[17] Strategic National Action Plan (SNAP) on Disaster Risk Reduction 2010–2019, The
Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM), Ministry of Interior,
Thailand, (in Thai).
[18] The Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM), Ministry of Interior,
Thailand, Press Release, (in Thai). < 122.155.1.145/site6/download-src.
php?Did=16393 > (Accessed 12 September 2016), 2016.
[19] The Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM), Ministry of Interior,
213
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 27 (2018) 199–213
Thailand, DDPM Strategy Plan 2012–2016, (in Thai).
[20] I. Davies, Z. Murshed, Community-Based Disaster Risk Management. Critical
Guidelines, The Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC), Bangkok, 2006.
[21] S.K. Kafle, Z. Murshed, Community-Based Disaster Risk Management for Local
Authorities: participant’s Workbook, The Asian Disaster Preparedness Center
(ADPC), Bangkok, 2006.
[22] R. Duke, Preface. In P. Rizzi (2014). On the Nature of Gaming Simulation. Scriptum,
Krakow, 2014.
[23] Y. Toyoda, Gaming Simulations with Action Learning for Community-based
Disaster Reduction Training, Action Learn. Action Res. Assoc. “Action Learn. Action
Res. J. 22 (1) (2016) 162–183.
[24] Y. Toyoda, H. Kanegae, A Community Evacuation Planning Model against Urban
Earthquakes, Reg. Sci., Policy Pract. 6 (3) (2014) 231–249.
[25] GIZ, The Strategy and Action Plan for Climate Change Resilience in Nan Town
Municipality. 〈https://suwajeetangon.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/
e0b881e0b8b2e0b8a3e0b8a3e0b8ade0b887e0b8a3e0b8b1e0b89ae0b881e0b8-
b2e0b8a3e0b980e0b89be0b8a5e0b8b5e0b988e0b8a2e0b899e0b981e0b89-
be0b8a5.pdf〉 (Accessed 10 May 2016), (in Thai), 2013.
[26] P. Tanwattana, An Evaluation of Community Readiness for Self-management: Case
of Climate Change Adaptation and Community Based Disaster Risk Management in
Nan Province Thailand, Research Report, (2014) (in Thai).
[27] E.M. Luna, Community-based disaster risk reduction and disaster management, in:
A. Lopez-Carresi, M. Fordham, B. Wisner, L. Kelman, J.C. Gaillard (Eds.), Disaster
Management: International Lessons in Risk Reduction, Response and Recovery,
Routledge, Canada, 2014, pp. 43–63.
[28] I. Abarquez, Z. Murshed, Community-based Disaster Risk Management: Field
Practitioners' Handbook, The Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC), Bangkok,
2004.
[29] The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Terminology.
〈https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology〉 (Accessed 26 May 2017), 2007.
[30] N.W. Adger, Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog. Hum. Geogr.
24 (3) (2000) 347–364 (2000).
[31] A.H. Kwok, E.H.E. Doyle, J. Becker, C. Paton, What is ‘social resilience’?
Perspectives of disaster researchers, emergency management practitioners, and
policymakers in New Zealand, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 19 (2016) 197–211.
[32] S. Parkash, Methodology used for community based multi-hazard risk management
in Garhwal Himalaya, Uttarakhand State, India, in: R. Osti, K. Miyake (Eds.), Forms
of Community Participation in Disaster Risk Management Practices, Nova Science
Pub Inc., New York, 2011, pp. 55–72.
[33] R.D. Duke, Gaming: the Future’s Language, Sage Publication, New York, 1974.
[34] C.S. Greenblat, Gaming as applied sociology, in: C.S. Greenblat, R.D. Duke (Eds.),
Gaming-Simulation: Rationale, Design, and Applications, Sage Publications, New
York, 1975, pp. 373–383.
[35] R.I. Miller, R.D. Duke, Gaming, A Methodological experiment, in: C.S. Greenblat,
R.D. Duke (Eds.), Gaming-Simulation: Rationale, Design, and Applications, Sage
Publications, New York, 1975, pp. 362–372.
[36] P. Rizzi, On the Nature of Gaming Simulation, Stampa, Krakow, 2014.
[37] R.H.R. Armstrong, M. Hobson, Introduction to gaming-simulation techniques, in:
C.S. Greenblat, R.D. Duke (Eds.), Gaming-Simulation: Rationale, Design, and
Applications, Sage Publications, New York, 1975, pp. 82–90.
[38] City Nantan, Hazard Map for Comprehensive Disaster Management for Family,
Nantan City, 2009 (in Japanese).
[39] P. Tanwattana, Building Community Based Disaster Risk Management Process: Case
Study of Disaster Risk Communities in Nan Province Thailand, Research Report,
(2016) (in Thai).
[40] P. Tanwattana, Building Local Community Awareness on Natural Disaster
Preparedness: Case Study of Local Communities in Nan Province, Thailand,
Research Report, (2015) (in Thai).
[41] I. Raungratanaamporn, Determination toward decision of public response in flood
situation: case study in urban flood prone area in central region in Thailand, Appl.
Environ. Res. 36 (3) (2014) 77–94.
[42] R. Shaw, K. Okajaki, Sustainable Community-based Disaster Management Practices
in Asia: a User’s Guide, UNCRD, Kobe, Japan, 2004.
[43] P. Tanwattana, Adaptation and Preparedness for Natural Disaster prevention: a
Study on Applying Gaming Simulation in Community Based Disaster Risk
Management (CBDRM), Research Report, (2015) (in Thai).
[44] P. Janmaimool, The establishment of a community-based mangrove forest man-
agement plan: lessons learned from mangrove forest conservation in the nernkhor
sub-district, Rayong Province, Thailand, Appl. Environ. Res. 38 (3) (2016) 59–75.
[45] N.A. Molla, J. Sangsanont, P. Thayanukul, H. Furumai, Proper dissemination of
information to improve people awareness on flood disaster: a case study of 2011
flood in Thailand, Appl. Environ. Res. 38 (2) (2016) 1–12.
[46] UNISDR (United Nations International Strategies for Disaster Reduction) Let’s learn
to prevent disasters: educational kit and riskland game. (Accessed on 15th
September 2017): 〈http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/2114〉.
[47] A.V. Gampell, J.C. Gallard, M. Parsons, K. Fisher, Beyond Stop Disasters 2.0: an
agenda for exploring the contribution of video games to learning about disasters,
Environ. Hazards 16 (2) (2017) 180–191.
[48] K. Masukawa, The origins of board games and ancient game boards, in: T. Kaneda,
H. Kanegae, Y. Toyoda, P. Rizzi (Eds.), Simulation and Gaming in the Network
Society, Springer, Singapore, 2016, pp. 3–11.
[49] J. Klabbers, The Magic Circle: Principles of Gaming & Simulation, Rotterdam, Sense
Publishers, Netherlands, 2006.
[50] D. Crookall, Editorial: Simulating Risk and Crisis, Simulation & Gaming 35 (3)
(2004) 340–343.
[51] L. Shen, R. Stephan, S. Wen-jun, Gaming Simulation for Public Crisis Management,
in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Management Science and
Engineering, 2007, 2007.