JDR Vol.15 No.5 pp. 599-608
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2020.p0599


Households’ Evacuation Decisions in Response to the 2011 Flood in Thailand

Ruttiya Bhula-or, Tadashi Nakasu, Tartat Mokkhamakkul, Sutee Anantsuksomsri, Yot Amornkitvikai, Kullachart Prathumchai, and Sutpratana Duangkaew

Chulalongkorn University
254 Visid Prachuabmoh Building, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand

Corresponding author

November 11, 2019
May 25, 2020
August 1, 2020
the 2011 flood in Thailand, evaluation response, household’s responses, flood, natural disaster

This study aims at clarifying households’ responses to the flood in Thailand. The result of this study helps fill the gap in literature about the factor affecting a household’s decision to evacuate in response to the flood, as such a decision varies with the type of natural disaster. The result of the study confirms that more vulnerable people are less likely to evacuate. However, they are more likely to evacuate, if at least one of their household members has reduced mobility. People in flood-prone areas exhibited moral hazards. Furthermore, people with relatively secured employment statuses are more likely to stay in the flood-prone area, to minimize their losses from the flood. If households with management-level employees received real-time and accurate updates about the flood, the decision to evacuate would be freely decided by such households, which can minimize their losses. Similarly, real-time and accurate data about potential damages and losses can reduce moral hazards. Thus, it is necessary for national and local governments to understand area-specific characteristics of people and linkages between societal vulnerability and economic resilience. The study’s implications highlight the importance of developing disaster management strategies in an integrated area-based approach.

Cite this article as:
R. Bhula-or, T. Nakasu, T. Mokkhamakkul, S. Anantsuksomsri, Y. Amornkitvikai, K. Prathumchai, and S. Duangkaew, “Households’ Evacuation Decisions in Response to the 2011 Flood in Thailand,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.15 No.5, pp. 599-608, 2020.
Data files:
  1. [1] World Bank, “Thai flood 2011: rapid assessment for resilient recovery and reconstruction planning: Overview (English),” 2012,, [accessed February 5, 2019]
  2. [2] A. Chongvilaivan, “Thailand’s 2011 flooding: Its impact on direct exports, and disruption of global supply chains,” ARTNeT Working Paper No.113, 2012.
  3. [3] J. Rozdilsky, “Flood-related relocation of valmeyer: Implications for the development of sustainable cities,” Environment and Planning Newsletter, Environmental, Natural Resources and Energy Division, American Planning Association, Center for Urban Policy and the Environment, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, 1996.
  4. [4] A. Fothergill and L. A. Peek, “Poverty and disasters in the United States: A review of recent sociological findings,” Natural Hazards, Vol.32, pp. 89-110, 2004.
  5. [5] B. H. Morrow and E. Enarson, “Hurricane Andrew through women’s eyes: Issues and recommendations,” Int. J. of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, Vol.14, No.1, pp. 5-22, 1996.
  6. [6] H. Gladwin and W. G. Peacock, “Warning and Evacuation: A Night of Hard Choices,” W. G. Peacock et al. (Eds.), “Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender and the Sociology of Disasters,” Routledge, 1997.
  7. [7] L. B. Bourque, L. A. Russell, and J. D. Goltz, “Human Behavior During and Immediately After the Loma Prieta Earthquake,” P. A. Bolton (Ed.), “The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989 – Public Response,” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1553-B, pp. B3-B22, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993.
  8. [8] R. W. Perry and M. K. Lindell, “Aged citizens in the warning phase of disasters: Re-examining the evidence,” Int. J. of Aging and Human Development, Vol.44, No.4, pp. 257-267, 1997.
  9. [9] Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, Ministry of Interior, Thailand, “Annual Report,” 2015.
  10. [10] R. R. Thompson, D. R. Garfin, and R. C. Silver, “Evacuation from Natural Disasters: A Systematic Review of the Literature,” Risk Analysis, Vol.37, No.4, pp. 812-839, 2017.
  11. [11] M. Haraguchi and U. Lall, “Flood risks and impacts: A case study of Thailand’s floods in 2011 and research questions for supply chain decision making,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.14, Part 3, pp. 256-272, 2015.
  12. [12] Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council, “Gross Regional and Provincial Product (GRP and GPP) Chain Volume Measures 2016 Edition,” 2016.
  13. [13] H. Lim, Jr., M. B. Lim, and M. Piantanakulchai, “A review of recent studies on flood evacuation planning,” J. of the Eastern Asia Society fo Transportation Studies, Vol.10, pp. 147-162, 2013.
  14. [14] C. M. Anderson, G. E. Hogarty, T. Bayer, and R. Needleman, “Expressed emotion and social networks of parents of schizophrenic patients,” The British J. of Psychiatry, Vol.144, pp. 247-255, 1984.
  15. [15] S. Hasan, S. V. Ukkusuri, H. Gladwin, and P. Murray-Tuite, “Behavioral model to understand household-level hurricane evacuation decision making,” J. Transp. Eng, Vol.137, No.5, pp. 341-348, 2011.
  16. [16] I. Raungratanaamporn, “Determination Towards Decision of Public Response in Flood Situation: Case Study in Urban Flood Prone Area in Central Region in Thailand,” Applied Environmental Research, Vol.36, No.3, pp. 77-94.
  17. [17] National Hydroinformatics and Climate, “The memorandum of the great flood on 2011,” (in Thai) [accessed October 1, 2019]
  18. [18] Ministry of Finance, Royal Thai Government and The World Bank, “Thailand Flooding 2554 Rapid Assessment for Resilient Recovery and Reconstruction Planning,” [accessed May 18, 2020]
  19. [19] R. J. Blendon, J. M. Benson, C. M. DesRoches, K. Lyon-Daniel, E. W. Mitchell, and W. E. Pollard, “The public’s preparedness for hurricanes in four affected regions,” Public Health Reports, Vol.122, No.2, pp. 167-176, 1974.
  20. [20] L. C. McGuire, E. S. Ford, and C. A. Okoro, “Natural disasters and older US adults with disabilities: Implications for evacuation,” Disasters, Vol.31, No.1, pp. 49-56, 200, 2007.
  21. [21] P. Rutaijedchareon, “SCG model,” Lessons Learned to Overcome the Great Flood Crisis, 2011.
  22. [22] L. K. Siebeneck and T. J. Cova, “Spatial and Temporal Variation in Evacuee Risk Perception Throughout the Evacuation and Return-Entry Process,” Risk Analysis, Vol.32, No.9, pp. 1468-1480, 2012.
  23. [23] M. B. Lim, H. Lim, Jr., and M. Piantanakulchai, “Factors affecting flood evacuation decision and its implication to transportation planning,” J. of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.10, pp. 163-177, 2013.
  24. [24] H. Sato, T. Techasrivichien, A. Omori, M. Ono-Kihara, and M. Kihara, “Psychosocial Consequences Among Nurses in the Affected Area of the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011 and the Fukushima Complex Disaster: A Qualitative Study,” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, Vol.13, No.3, pp. 519-526, 2019.
  25. [25] A. Bravi, K. Schaur, A. Trupp, T. Sakulsri, R. Tadee, K. Apipornchaisakul, and S. Punpuing, “Migrants in Countries in Crisis (MICIC) Thailand Case Study: Migration and Natural Disasters – The Impact on Migrants of the 2011 Floods in Thailand,” International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), 2017.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Apr. 05, 2024