https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2021.

p0571
Factoring Multi-Hazard Risk Perception in Risk Assessment and Reduction
Measures in Landslide and Flash Flood Prone Areas – A Case Study of
Sichon District, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Thailand

Paper:

Factoring Multi-Hazard Risk Perception in Risk Assessment and

Reduction Measures in Landslide and Flash Flood Prone Areas
– A Case Study of Sichon District, Nakhon Si Thammarat
Province, Thailand
Indrajit Pal∗,† and Jessada Karnjana∗∗
∗ Disaster Preparedness, Mitigation and Management (DPMM), Asian Institute of Technology (AIT)
Moo 9, Km 42 Paholyothin Highway, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand
† Corresponding author, E-mail: indrajit-pal@ait.asia, indrajit.pal@gmail.com
∗∗ National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC), National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA),

Pathum Thani, Thailand

[Received November 25, 2020; accepted March 26, 2021]

This study’s purpose is to analyze the degree of risk
and vulnerability involved in landslide and flash flood
prone community areas in Thepparat sub-district,
Sichon district, Nakhon Si Thammarat province,
Thailand. It also aims to analyze and understand
the socio-economic impacts on the community at the
household level, and assess the community’s risk and
vulnerability by examining its risk perception. The
risk perception was done using focus group discus-
sions and a questionnaire survey with key stakehold-
ers. It mainly focused on how the risk of landslides
and flash floods influences the community’s risk per-
ceptions, which was tested in two parts: at the orga-
nizational and community levels by focusing on gov-
ernment officials and households, respectively. A cor-
relation matrix was used to understand the relation-
ship of the indicators selected. The Pearson correla-
tion result has shown that the degree of risk aware-
ness positively correlates with the income level, educa-
tion level, and controllability, signifying that the risk
of landslides and flash floods influences household risk
perceptions. The qualitative assessment recommends
community-level preparedness as being paramount to
reduce the risk for a resilient community.
Keywords: community preparedness, flash flood, land-
slide, multi-hazard, risk perception
1. Introduction
Sichon District, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province is lo-
cated in the southwest of Thailand, and is surrounded by a
high altitude mountain on the west and a plain area on the
east. Moreover, the mountain’s bedrock comprises gran-
ite that has a high potential of sliding. Furthermore, the
Sichon district is also prone to flash floods due to heavy
or even moderate rainfall situations. The primary liveli-
hoods in this area mostly come from agricultural activi-
ties, such as rice fields and orchards. Thus, most people
try to change the land use pattern without visualizing the
consequences. For example, they change the forest area
to a plantation area and cut the slope of the mountain,
which could cause flash floods and landslides. The exten-
sive floods in 2011 also affected the district and caused
massive landslides. Apart from private properties, lots of
government facilities, such as roads, bridges, small dams,
and drainage systems were destroyed, and the total dam-
ages of all districts amounted to around 320 million baht.
As defined by researchers [1, 2], risk perception refers
to people’s subjective judgment of an event’s risk prob-
ability based on their different perspectives, experiences,
and knowledge. Therefore, risk perceptions of landslides
and flash floods differ from person to person based on
their individual experiences and knowledge. Society, cul-
ture, and beliefs can also play contributing roles [3]. This
subjective judgment of landslide and flash flood risks
would determine the extent to which people are involved
with national policies and laws. Preparedness and miti-
gation research studies enhance landslide and flash flood
awareness, preparedness plans and programs, as well
as coping activities and resilience skills of the commu-
nity [4]. Furthermore, the current state of attitudes and
perceptions of the stakeholders, authorities, and imple-
menters can play a crucial role in influencing the final
amount of intended involvement, effort, and resources
that would be applied at the local level [5].
Therefore, a new trend of study concerns the change
of vulnerability conditions that can bring about disas-
ter risk reduction (DRR), such as the potential of post-
disaster loss [6, 7]. The disaster risk management ap-
proach can address each of the components of risk, such
as hazard intensity and probability, as well as popula-
tion, critical infrastructure, and vulnerability [8, 9]. More-
over, since the assessment and perception of risks dif-
fers amongst people in each community, these differences
can be integrated to find out the best information on de-

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.16 No.4, 2021 571

© Fuji Technology Press Ltd. Creative Commons CC BY-ND: This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/).
Pal, I. and Karnjana, J.

cision making, which can then be provided to decision-

makers for implementing plans, funding, and disaster risk
management projects [10]. There is a need to estab-
lish some contextual linkages between the multi-hazard
risk perceptions of the decision-makers and the commu-
nity, since these could grossly influence the DRR deci-
sion making process for the district and general province.
The present study analyzed the involvement of the stake-
holders in DRR decision-making. Its outcome could
lead to the identification of disaster risk management is-
sues/conditions, that need to be addressed based on the
risk perceptions of the local people, multi-stakeholders,
multi sectors, and departments [11]. Its results could also
provide decision-makers in the community with very im-
portant recommendations for planning projects and prac- (a)
tices more efficiently [12].

2. Background of the Study Area

Nakhon Si Thammarat – the second largest province in
the southern part of Thailand – has a varied topography
with three distinct features: a mountain range in the mid-
dle, a plain area on the eastern coast, and a plain area in
the west.
The study area is “Thepparat” (Tambon/sub-district)
located at 8◦ 86 N and 99◦ 77 E to the north of Nakhon
Si Thammarat province, covering an area of around
81.198 km2 (Fig. 1). Its geographical condition is high
mountains, about 1,340 m above sea level, flat foot, and
(b)
plain areas. It has many hills, such as Sam Thep, Teng,
and Youn Thao, which create this area’s main canals, Fig. 1. (a) Nakhon Si Thammarat province, Thailand,
namely Tha Thon, Sam Thep, Phean, and Pean canals. (b) Thepparat administration.
Based on its geographical conditions, the Thepparat Tam-
bon community is prone to landslide and flash flood haz-
ards [13].
Tha Thon canal. In particular, heavy losses and dam-
ages were faced by village number 10 of Thepparat sub-
3. Hazards, Vulnerability, and Risks of Nakhon district, where 4 people died, 48 houses were completely
Si Thammarat damaged, 68 moderately damaged, and government in-
frastructure for public services, such as roads, bridges,
Nakhon Si Thammarat province – located on the east small dams, and drainage system were also destroyed (Ta-
coast of the Gulf of Thailand – has a tropical monsoon ble 1). The cost of total damages in all districts were esti-
climate, with an annual rainfall of 1,800–2,200 mm. The mated at around 320 million Thai baht.
rainy season starts around the middle of May and lasts
until mid-January [14]. Landslide and flash flood hazards
in Nakhon Si Thammarat are closely associated with the 4. Data Collection Methodology
monsoon and typhoons, wherein heavy rainfall can cause
slope failures. Heavy rains, combined with poor building The tools and techniques used for collecting the data
practices and deforestation, result in landslides and flash and information in this study were designed to measure
floods (Table 1) [3]. Communities affected by disasters and evaluate the local community’s risk perceptions. The
generally do not receive any warning, and the rural and primary data were gathered through a structured question-
economically poor communities are likely to be most af- naire administered to the community, face-to-face inter-
fected. views, field observations, and focus group discussions.
Sichon district administration reported flash floods and Secondary data such as the map and history, background
rainfall-induced landslides during March 23–31, 2011, information of the study area, agricultural land, plans and
that were triggered by heavy rainfall (more than 100 mm policies from the Department of Disaster Prevention and
per day) for several days. The event was severe, and Mitigation (DDPM)’s provincial office and Department of
harmed communities in mountainous areas and along the Mineral Resources were collected from an extensive liter-

572 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.16 No.4, 2021

 Factoring Multi-Hazard Risk Perception in Risk Assessment and Reduction
Measures in Landslide and Flash Flood Prone Areas – A Case Study of
Sichon District, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Thailand

Table 1. Historical landslides and flash floods in Nakhon Si Thammarat province [15].

Date Hazard Location Losses and Damages

October 25–26, Tropical Storm Landfall at Laem Talumphuk, 900 people died and more than 10,000
1962 Harriet caused Pak Phanang District, Nakhon Si were homeless.
a storm surge Thammarat
November 22, 1988 Landslides and Ban Kathun Nuea, Phipun District and 230 people died, and damages worth
debris flow Ban Khiri Wong, Lan Saka District, 1 billion Thai baht.
Nakhon Si Thammarat
November 29, 1993 A tropical Nakhon Si Thammarat 23 people died and damages worth
depression can 1.3 billion Thai baht.
cause flooding
November 3, 1997 Tropical Storm Nakhon Si Thammarat 164 people died.
Linda
October–December Flooding Many provinces in Southern Thailand 80 people died. Damages up to 54 bil-
2010 lion Thai baht.
March 23–April 5, Landslide and Thepparat, Cha Long, and Khao Noi 5 people died from water washout.
2011 flash flood sub-district 124 houses were destroyed and 3,000
had some damages. Estimated bud-
get for recovery was 320 million Thai
baht.
July 2011– Flooding 65 provinces 815 people died and estimated eco-
January 2012 nomic losses were 1,425 billion baht.

ature review, and could provide significant outcomes for
this study’s data analysis.
4.1. Field Survey or Field Observation
To understand the study area’s actual situation and
come up with a deeper background and detailed infor-
mation, this study’s questionnaire survey was designed
to gather information, such as socio-economic charac-
teristics related to risk perception, and the vulnerability
components of the local community. It used a stratified
and random sampling process and focus group interviews
to collect field-based data. The sample’s stratification
will be done based on the decision-making of the various
stakeholders in the community. Since this study focused
on landslide and flash flood impact in Theppharat Tam-
bon, in 15 of its villages, every household was considered
as a sample, with a total of 220 respondents. It followed
the method advocated by Yamane [16] (Eq. (1)), and se-
lected its confidence level and allowable error as 95% and
10%, respectively,
N
n= , . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
1 + N(e)2
where “n” is the sample size, “N” the population size, and
“e” the acceptable sampling error.
4.2. Selection of Key Informants
For the detailed interviews, key informants were se-
lected from the community, district, and provincial lev-
els, and included those who were close to the community
and working with government agencies, so that they could
provide and share their plans and enhance the community
by finding solutions for risk reduction measures. Thus,
government organizations and the local community were
selected as the main targets for information and data col-
lection (Table 2).
5. Multi-Hazard Risk Perception
5.1. Community Risk Perceptions on Landslides
and Flash Floods
Risk perceptions were examined using a close-ended
questionnaire survey for the whole community at the
household level, as well as for key stakeholders. This
observation was based on the community’s experiences
and perceptions of the landslide and flash flood disaster
in March 2011. The questionnaire includes three parts of
risk perception as shown in Table 3.
The risk perception indicators have been designed to
understand the relationship between the community’s at-
titudes when perceiving the risk, and how communities
prepare to respond or cope with disasters. Since each of
the chosen indicators were linked with other indicators to
perform some activities in the next step, this study also
performed the Pearson correlation matrix to express the
relationship between the indicators. The final findings and
results will provide Thepparat with recommendations and
suggestions for reducing their risk of landslides and flash
floods at the community level. This study’s risk percep-
tion indicators have been selected to analyze three aspects
of risk. First, emergency response, which involves under-
standing the people’s satisfaction with the response team’s
operations in their community (Table 3). Second, aware-
ness of future events, which refers to people’s perceptions,
beliefs, or knowledge about the risks of probable future

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.16 No.4, 2021 573

Pal, I. and Karnjana, J.

Table 2. Selection of key informants.

Agencies Administrative Key informants Items presented/discussed/observed

levels
Department of Disaster Both provincial Head of the • Role of DDPM for landslide and flash flood
Prevention and Mitigation and district lev- DDPM Office management in Nakhon Si Thammarat Province
(DDPM) of Nakhon Si els and staff as well as Sichon branch, incorporated at the lo-
Thammarat Province and cal level to take disaster preparedness and miti-
Sichon branch gation. measures, under the central government’s
guidance
• Related document review
The Provincial Meteorological Provincial Head of the • Role of MET in providing weather information
Station (MET) level provincial to the landslide and flash flood prone areas by dis-
MET office seminating the information to the local govern-
ment and DDPM
Provincial Irrigation Office Provincial Head of the • Role of the irrigation office for management of
level Provincial landslides and flash floods
Irrigation • Mitigation measures have been taken
Office • Related document review
Theppharat Tambon Adminis- Theppharat Tambon Ad- • Role of the Theppharat Tambon Administrative
trative Organization Sub-district ministration Organization for management of landslides/flash
(Tambon) Chief and floods management
Level Officers, Com- • Field survey of structured mitigation measures
munity Leader for landslides and flash floods
• Field observation along the river and mountain
during events such as landslides and flash floods
• Review of related documents

Table 3. Landslide and flash flood risk perceptions of the focus group and community members.

Risk perception Government organizations∗ Community (Head of the Village)

indicators
Emergency Establish training and drills, such as One
Response Tambon, One Search, and Rescue Team
(OTOS) for civil defense protection teams
and volunteers, in terms of access to first
aid and basics.
Risk awareness Awareness of the future occurrence of
of future events landslides and flash floods.
Controllability Structural measures such as dikes and
check-dams, and non-structural measures
such as education and Community Based
Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM)
training programs were taken into account.
∗ In this study, government organizations refer to primary stakeholders, who play a significant role in decision making,
People can manage for 3?4 days, until the response
team comes to help them, given that, it is very dif-
ficult to enter remote areas, especially when debris
blocks the roads or cuts off the bridges. Moreover,
the response team also chooses to shift people to
evacuation shelters.
People are more aware of the hazards of flash
floods, but not of landslides because they have
never faced it before. Moreover, they know of
evacuation shelters in place.
People in flash flood prone areas, know how to pro-
tect their houses and properties. However, since
they do not have prior experience of landslides,
they cannot perform mitigation actions.

including disaster prevention and mitigation, at both provincial and branch levels, such as the Provincial Irrigation
Office, Provincial Meteorological Station, and Tambon Administration Organization (Table 2).

events, such as landslides and flashfloods. Last, controlla-
bility that relates to people’s knowing about the structural
as well as non-structural mitigation measures that need to
be taken, or which are in place.
According to the data preparation, indicators were set
up based on the following criteria: i) the age group of the
sample population; ii) annual household income based on
household incomes in the province, i.e., average or be-
low average income; iii) education level categories: low,
medium, and high; iv) controllability: undertaken by peo-
ple to protect their houses and properties from hazards,
such as flash floods and landslides; and v) emergency
response, which involves measuring the people’s satis-
faction and whether they think that the government’s re-

574 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.16 No.4, 2021


Table 4. Descriptive statistics of selected indicators.
Indicators
Age group of the <21
population 21–60
>60
Annual household Below average provincial income
income Above average provincial income
Education levels Low
Medium
High
Controllability Controlled
Uncontrolled
Emergency response Quick
Delayed
sponse operations in their community were quick or de-
layed (Table 4).
5.2. Survey of Key Informants: Officials of Govern-
ment Organizations
The informants for semi-structured interviews were se-
lected from government departments, such as Provincial
Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, Provincial Irrigation
Office, Provincial Meteorological Station, and Disaster
Prevention and Mitigation of Sichon district’s Tambon
Administration Organization. The analysis shows that
most of the key informants in government organizations
are well aware of landslide and flash flood hazards, in
terms of their locations, frequency of events, etc. Most
of the officials mentioned the various structural mitiga-
tion measures undertaken at the local level through vari-
ous developmental projects and non-structural mitigation
measures, in line with the national DRR initiatives.
5.3. Community Level Risk Perceptions
Focus group discussions with representatives have
made it possible to analyze their perceptions of landslides
and flash floods at the community level. The heads of each
of the 15 villages were selected as representatives for the
interview, which was conducted to understand the percep-
tions in different villages. The community was divided
into three categories based on the Thepparat community’s
topography. People in the landslide group were not aware
of landslide risks because this kind of a hazard had never
occurred in their area before. Hence, they had a lack of
knowledge on how they could control the risk.
Moreover, most people in the landslide group resided
close to foothills, which increased their vulnerability.
People in the flash flood group were aware of the risk
of floods since almost every year, during the monsoon
season, communities located along the Tha Thon canal
face flash floods, which though of very short duration
(around 1–2 days), have a very high velocity. Since peo-
ple in this group had experienced flash floods, they could
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.16 No.4, 2021
Factoring Multi-Hazard Risk Perception in Risk Assessment and Reduction
Measures in Landslide and Flash Flood Prone Areas – A Case Study of
Sichon District, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Thailand
Classes Frequency Percentage
(n = 220)
59 27
128 58
33 15
161 73
59 27
147 67
42 19
31 14
147 67
73 33
136 62
84 48
initiate activities, such as improving their houses, etc.,
to reduce their risk. People in the landslide as well as
flash flood prone areas were more aware of the risks of
flash floods because of having several experiences of flash
floods, whereas they had faced landslides for the first time
in 2011. This qualitative assessment suggests that gaps in
risk communication and risk information hold the key for
people living in areas with higher risks.
5.4. Household Risk Perceptions
Landslide and flash flood risks can influence personal
attitudes. The indicators of risk perception at the house-
hold level, shown in Table 3, were selected from avail-
able literature on natural hazards, such as studies by Ho
et al. [17] and Ainuddin et al. [18]. These include age, in-
come, education, controllability, and emergency response.
Risk perceptions can help in understanding the interrela-
tionship of risk perception variables to formulate strate-
gies for addressing risk awareness and preparedness.
6. Analysis and Discussion
6.1. Correlation Matrix Among Risk Perception In-
dicators
Pearson correlation for selected variables, e.g., risk
awareness, income levels, education levels, emergency re-
sponse, controllability, and age of the people, were con-
sidered as continuous variables to compare the responses
of people in both the landslide and flash flood prone ar-
eas. Some categorical data like income levels, that were
taken as average provincial income were considered as
continuous variables for the correlation study. Similarly,
emergency response and controllability that considered
the predominant or higher ranks as representative classes
were considered as continuous variables for correlation
analysis. The correlation results indicate that the indi-
cators had a relationship (positive or negative) with the
landslide and flash flood risk perceptions in the study area
(Table 5).
575
Pal, I. and Karnjana, J.

Table 5. Correlation matrix.

RA IN EL ER CON AG
Risk awareness (RA)
PC 1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N 220
Income levels (IN)
PC 0.273* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.041
N 220 220
Education levels (EL)
PC 0.595** 0.162* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 0.034
N 220 220 220
Emergency Response (ER)
PC 0.101 −0.069 −0.145 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.211 0.735 0.462
N 220 220 220 220
Controllability (CON)
PC 0.734** 0.544** 0.218* −0.283 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.003 0.004 0.043 0.144
N 220 220 220 220 220
Age of people (AG)
PC −0.079 0.023 0.279* 0.036 −0.113 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.691 0.409 0.04 0.858 0.566
N 220 220 220 220 220 220
PC = Pearson Correlation
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Income levels: The household income was based
on the Nakhon Si Thammarat province’s average annual
household income, viz., 25,124 Thai baht [19]. However,
the income of the majority of the households (73%, i.e.,
161) is below a province’s average income (15,000 per
household), which is considered as the reference point,
whereas households having incomes below 15,000 baht
are considered as poor. For testing the relationship be-
tween income and household risk perception, income in
the province is considered in two categories: below aver-
age household income and above average household in-
come. With regard to future occurrence and controllabil-
ity, income is compared with risk awareness. The results
show that the average household income is correlated
with the risk awareness of future occurrences (r = 0.27,
N = 220, p < 0.05) and controllability (r = 0.54, N = 220,
p < 0.01) because income is one of the determinants of
a community’s ability to cope with disasters. Regarding
the community’s housing condition, people had renovated
their houses to avoid future flooding. From the field sur-
vey, it emerged that some people had carried out renova-
tions, such as lifting the height of their houses by 1.5 m,
etc. many times. Thus, there is a positive correlation be-
tween income and controllability.
Education: The respondents’ education was grouped
into three categories: 1) Low: primary and secondary
school education; 2) Medium: high school education; and
3) High: college and university education. It showed that
14% of highly educated people were well aware of the risk
of landslides and flash floods, while 67% of respondents
were not. The result indicates that the educational level
has a positive correlation with people’s risk awareness on
landslides and flash floods (r = 0.59, N = 220, p < 0.01).
Emergency Response: It establishes training and
drills, such as OTOS for civil defense protection teams
and volunteers, in terms of access to first aid and ba-
sics. The negative correlation between emergency re-
sponse and controllability may have been prominent due
to the structural mitigation for landslide and flash flood
prone communities in the study area. Conversely, since
people’s incomes and education levels, both showed a
positive correlation with emergency response, it indicates
the influence of human knowledge and financial capacity
on DRR.
Controllability: A Pearson correlation that was run
to determine the relationship between landslide and flash
flood risk awareness (future occurrences) and controlla-
bility (structural and non-structural measures) showed a
strong and positive correlation (r = 0.73, N = 220, p <
0.01). As a result, the correlation matrix shows that the re-
lationship between risk awareness and controllability has
a correlation with people in the community having some
knowledge about the risk, and their having faced it before.
Especially, since communities in flash flood prone ar-
eas had experienced floods, they could take measures
when hazards did occur. Therefore, local governments in

576 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.16 No.4, 2021

 Factoring Multi-Hazard Risk Perception in Risk Assessment and Reduction
Measures in Landslide and Flash Flood Prone Areas – A Case Study of
flash flood zones would have taken some measures, such
as improving the existing dikes by increasing their height
and dredging the canal. Moreover, to self-protect their
communities and reduce direct losses and damages, peo-
ple have undertaken measures, such as lifting their houses
and early harvesting of their crop productions.
Age of the people: To examine the relationship
between landslide and flash floods risks with people’s
age groups, the respondents were categorized into three
groups: below 21 years of age, 21–60 years, and above
60 years. The frequency analysis showed that 15% were
over 60 years and 27% below 21 years. The elderly or
people aged above 60 years, often represent vulnerability
to disaster because older people will take a longer time to
recover from injuries from natural hazards.
7. Conclusion and Remarks
7.1. Primary Findings
Both landslides and flash floods are more frequent due
to hydro-meteorological phenomena. Generally, people
in local communities are the first to face the disaster’s im-
pact. Since disaster management activities may not be
successful with the sole involvement of the national gov-
ernment, the local government and community’s involve-
ment is needed to reduce disaster risks through other ways
of implementing a centralized risk governance mecha-
nism. The positive correlation between risk awareness
and controllability depicts that people in the community
know the risk if they have faced it before. The institu-
tional mechanism is playing an essential role in develop-
ing community-based resilience [20]. This study’s pur-
pose is to analyze the degree of risk and vulnerability, pri-
marily qualitative risk perception, in landslide and flash
flood prone areas. The risk analysis of the Thepparat
sub-district explores the degree of exposure of the com-
munity at risk, and their vulnerability to both landslides
and flash floods. This study’s risk analysis findings show
that three of the villages in one Tambon (Thepparat sub-
district) had different risks due to their varied topogra-
phies, slopes, land-use, and settlement areas. Although
the existing landslide susceptibility map can be used to
identify the landslide factors as well as its vulnerability
areas, the risk of communities vary based on other ele-
ments that progress from vulnerable conditions, such as
condition of the roads and houses, as well as capacities,
such as time to receive early warning information, time
to go to an evacuation shelter, etc. Mostly, the commu-
nity’s vulnerability depends on its socio-economic condi-
tions, e.g., communities in the landslide group were more
vulnerable than those in the flash flood group, in which,
people had more income, higher levels of education, and
more experiences of disasters, which could influence their
perceptions and awareness about the risks. Field obser-
vations too, support the argument on the higher vulnera-
bility of landslide prone areas than the flash floods ones,
due to the higher frequency of flash flood hazards as com-
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.16 No.4, 2021
Sichon District, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Thailand
pared to landslides, and the mitigation measures taken by
the community based on economic status. However, even
though communities in the flash flood group had more re-
silience, their disaster risk was still high because coordi-
nation between the government departments was absent,
and disaster preparedness and mitigation programs were
undertaken mostly in the landslide group [21]. In gen-
eral, respondents were not aware of the hazards and risks
that the landslides and flash floods could cause [22]. This
study also found that the local government plays a key
role in increasing disaster awareness. The head of Dis-
aster Prevention and Mitigation in the Sichon branch and
the head of the Provincial Meteorological Office, both had
opportunities to reach out to the community through the
local radio channels (FM radio) for updates on weather
situations, and increase public awareness by reporting on
disaster news. This study also explored the granularity of
disaster data at various levels, which is also an essential
component for improved risk communication and better
preparedness by the community [23].
7.2. Mitigation Strategies for Landslides and Flash
Floods at the Community Level
Mitigation measures for landslides and flash floods
have two parts: short-term and long-term mitigation mea-
sures. The long-term mitigation measures are mostly re-
lated to watershed management and agriculture, forest
cover, and land use patterns. However, short-term miti-
gation measures can be initiated by the community and
local governments through the following ways:
• Improved and accessible early warning system
• Developing coordination for emergency response
• Identifying safe places for temporary facilities
• Community Based Disaster Risk Management (CB-
DRM) training programs
• Increasing the capacity of volunteers for search and
rescue
• Disaster awareness
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Thailand’s Department of Mineral Resources,
Nakhon Si Thammarat’s Provincial Disaster Prevention and Miti-
gation team, Sichon Branch’s Disaster Prevention and Mitigation
team, Nakhon Si Thammarat’s Meteorological Station, Nakhon Si
Thammarat’s Irrigation Office, and Thepparat Tambon’s Admin-
istration Organization. We also acknowledge the support received
from e-Asia Joint Research Program and National Science and
Technology Development Agency under the project entitled “Es-
tablishment of a Landslide Monitoring and Prediction System.”
577
 Pal, I. and Karnjana, J.

References:
[1] S. Paul, “Perceptions of Risk,” Science, Vol.236, No.4799, pp. 280- Name:
285, 1987. Indrajit Pal
[2] S. Paul, B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, “Rating the Risks,” Envi-
ronment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Vol.21,
No.3, pp. 14-39. 1979. Affiliation:
[3] I. Pal, P. Tularug, S. K. Jana, and D. K. Pal, “Risk assessment and Assistant Professor and Chair, Disaster Pre-
reduction measures in landslide and flash flood-prone areas: A case paredness, Mitigation and Management, Asian
of southern Thailand (Nakhon si Thammarat province),” P. Samui, Institute of Technology
D. Kim, and C. Ghosh (Eds.), “Integrating Disaster Science and
Management: Global Case Studies in Mitigation and Recovery,”
pp. 295-308, Elsevier, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-812056-9.00017-8,
2018.
[4] A. Mohanty, M. Hussain, M. Mishra, D. B. Kattel, and I. Pal, Address:
“Exploring community resilience and early warning solution for Moo 9, Km 42 Paholyothin Highway, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120,
flash floods, debris flow and landslides in conflict prone villages
of Badakhshan, Afghanistan,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Thailand
Vol.33, pp. 5-15, doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.07.012, 2019. Brief Career:
[5] K. K. Lwin, I. Pal, S. Shrestha, and P. Warnitchai, “Assessing 2002- Senior Project Assistant, Indian Institute of Technology
social resilience for flood-vulnerable communities in Ayeyarwady 2006- Associate Professor, Centre for Disaster Management, Lal Bahadur
Delta, Myanmar,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.51, Article Shastri National Academy of Administration
No.101745, doi: org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101745, 2020. 2014- Assistant Professor and Chair, Disaster Preparedness, Mitigation
[6] A. Dacosta, D. Theresa, and K. Joseph, “Risk Perception and Dis- and Management, Asian Institute of Technology
aster Management in the Savannah Region of Ghana,” Int. J. of Hu-
manities and Social Science, Vol.3, No.3, pp. 85-96, 2013. Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:
[7] K. Munjuluri, I. Pal, and N. K. Tripathi, “Geospatial Techniques • Regional Integrated Multi-Hazard Early Warning System for Africa and
for rapid Post Disaster Needs Assessment (rPDNA),” Int. J. of Asia (RIMES), Advisor DRR and Governance
Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), Vol.8, No.4, doi: • Global Alliance of Disaster Research Institutes (GARDI), Board of
10.35940/ijrte.D8017.118419, 2019. Director’s Member
[8] G. Torsten and F. Reusswig, “People at Risk of Flooding: Why • Indian Society of Remote Sensing, Life Member
Some Residents Take Precautionary Action While Others Do Not,”
Natural Hazards, Vol.38, No.1-2, pp. 101-20, doi: 10.1007/s11069-
005-8604-6, 2006.
[9] I. Pal and S. Bhatia, “Disaster risk governance and city resilience in
Asia-pacific region,” R. Shaw, K. Shiwaku, and T. Izumi (Eds.),
“Science and technology in disaster risk reduction in Asia: Po- Name:
tentials and challenges,” pp. 137-159, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12- Jessada Karnjana
812711-7.00009-2, 2017.
[10] M. A. Fadlallah, I. Pal, and V. C. Hoe, “Determinants of perceived
risk among artisanal gold miners: A case study of Berber locality, Affiliation:
Sudan,” The Extractive Industries and Society, Vol.7, No.2, pp. 748- National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC),
757, doi: 10.1016/j.exis.2020.03.006, 2020. National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA)
[11] M. C. Ho et al., “How Do Disaster Characteristics Influence Address:
Risk Perception,” Risk Analysis, Vol.28, No.3, pp. 635-643, doi: 112 Thailand Science Park, Khlong Luang, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01040.x, 2008.
[12] Defra, “Understanding the risk, empowering communities, build-
ing resilience. Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation.
(n.d.),” Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, 2011,
http://www.disaster.go.th/dpm/ (in Thai) [accessed June 12, 2020]
[13] Department of Mineral Resource, “Landslide Hazard map in
Nakhon Si Thammarat. Environmental Research,” Thailand, 2010.
[14] Thailand Integrated Water Resources Management, http://www.
thaiwater.net/web/ [accessed July 23, 2020]
[15] “EM-DAT (1900-2015),” EM-DAT: The International Disaster
Database, http://www.emdat.be/database [accessed June 25, 2020]
[16] T. Yamane, “Statistics, An Introductory Analysis,” 2nd edition,
Harper and Row, 1967.
[17] M.-C. Ho, D. Shaw, S. Lin, and Y.-C. Chiu, “ How Do Disaster
Characteristics Influence Risk Perception?,” Risk Analysis, Vol.28,
pp. 635-643, doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01040.x, 2008.
[18] S. Ainuddin, D. P. Aldrich, J. K. Routray, S. Ainuddin, and
A. Achkazai, “The need for local involvement: Decentraliza-
tion of disaster management institutions in Baluchistan, Pak-
istan,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.6, pp. 50-58, doi:
10.1016/j.ijdrr.2013.04.001, 2013.
[19] National Statistical Office, Ministry of Information and Commu-
nication Technology, “The Household Socio-Economic Survey,”
2015.
[20] I. Pal, T. Ghosh, and C. Ghosh, “Institutional framework and ad-
ministrative systems for effective disaster risk governance – per-
spectives of 2013 cyclone Phailin in India,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk
Reduction, Vol.21, pp. 350-359, doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.01.002,
2017.
[21] C. Ghosh and I. Pal, “Geotechnical measures for Uttarakhand
flash flood-2013, India,” Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.48, No.1,
pp. 117-127, 2017.
[22] M. Kuri, “Recent Perceptions of Volcanic Hazard-Related Infor-
mation in Japan: Expectation of Eruption Predictability and Ac-
ceptance of Uncertainty (2019),” J. Disaster Res., Vol.14, No.8,
pp. 1072-1085, doi: 10.20965/jdr.2019.p1072, 2019.
[23] H. Tanaka, D. Sasaki, and Y. Ono, “Proposed Requirement Defi-
nition Method for Developing Global Disaster Database Based on
Various Means of Data Collection (2018),” J. Disaster Res., Vol.13,
No.6, pp. 1015-1023, doi: 10.20965/jdr.2018.p1015, 2018.

578 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.16 No.4, 2021

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)