This study focuses on some houses in Phang Nga Province in Thailand that were permanently relocated after the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004. It aims to analyze extensions and improvements by residents who have lived in the houses for a long time. Most previous research has painted spatial extensions in a bad light because of the negative feedback from residents regarding post-disaster housing; this could mean that residents were less than satisfied with such houses in comparison to their previous ones with respect to construction, function, or size. Observing and interviewing residents allowed me to infer that spatial extensions can also represent the positive development of long-term recovery projects, as they increase the satisfaction of residents who, more than 10 years after the tsunami, have changed their lifestyles, family sizes, and jobs. It also demonstrates why residents are more satisfied with house types that allow them to carry out the required space adaptions or extensions when they have an increase in their income. In this study, it was observed that extensional space could also be a positive factor revealing the developments in residents’ lives as they showed their intent to live permanently in this type of housing even after the disaster.

1. [1] M. Srivichai, S. Supharatid, and F. Imamura, “Recovery Process in Thailand after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami,” Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Vol.29, No.1, pp. 3-12, 2007.
2. [2] Int. Strategy For Disaster Reduction (ISDR)’ (2006) 44 Choice Reviews Online.
3. [3] K. Shigekawa, S. Tanaka, and M. Takashima, “Analysis of Disaster Victims’ Decision-Making in the Process of Reconstruction Housing,” Journal of Disaster Research, Vol.7, No.2, pp. 127-134, 2012.
4. [4] N. Kamel, “Lessons for Long-Term Residential Recovery: Factors of Community Resilience and Marginalization,” Journal of Disaster Research, Vol.5, No.2, pp. 147-154, 2010.
5. [5] S. Tatsuki, “Optimal Life Recovery Assistance for Those Who Are Residing in Designated Temporary Housing in Widely Dispersed Locations: Interim Findings on Different Household Groups and on Life Recovery Promotion Parameters,” Journal of Disaster Research, Vol.10, No.5, pp. 939-947, 2015.
6. [6] F. Steinberg, “Housing reconstruction and rehabilitation in Aceh and Nias, Indonesia – Rebuilding lives,” Habitat Int., Vol.31, No.1, pp. 150-166, 2007.
7. [7] S. Dipa, “UNDP report – Tsunami Thailand one year later National response and contribution of international partner,” pp. 12-30, 2005.
8. [8] M. Attavanich and H. Kobayashi, “Living conditions in post-tsunami houses: A case study of the moklen ethnic minority group in Tungwa village, Phang Nga province, Southern Thailand,” Int. Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.19, pp. 12-21, 2016.
9. [9] J. Maitree, “Namkem community DDPM volunteer presentation,” pp. 1-40, 2013.
10. [10] M. Ubaura, J. Nieda, and M. Miyakawa, “Building Reconstruction After Large-Scale Disasters A Case Study of Ishinomaki City After the Great East Japan Earthquake,” Journal of Disaster Research, Vol.11, No.sp, pp. 780-788, 2016.
11. [11] E. Raju, “Housing Reconstruction in Disaster Recovery: A Study of Fishing Communities Post-Tsunami in Chennai,” India. PLoS Currents, 2013.
12. [12] S. Titaya, “Disaster Reduction and Housing Recovery by residents after disaster in Thailand: Case study of 2011 Thailand. Flood and 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami,” Doctoral Dissertation, Kobe University, pp. 39-40, 2014.