Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Flood risk management in Thailand: Shifting from a

passive to a progressive paradigm

Nuanchan Singkran

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdr

PII: S2212-4209(17)30225-X
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.08.003
Reference: IJDRR625
To appear in: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
Received date: 19 May 2017
Revised date: 5 August 2017
Accepted date: 6 August 2017
Cite this article as: Nuanchan Singkran, Flood risk management in Thailand:
Shifting from a passive to a progressive paradigm, International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.08.003
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Flood risk management in Thailand: Shifting from a passive to a progressive paradigm

Nuanchan Singkran

Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University

999 Moo 5, Sai 4 Phuttamonthon Road, Salaya, Phuttamonthon,

Nakhon Pathom 73170 Thailand

Phone: +66 86 018 9006, Fax: +66 2441 9509-10

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

This article examines the 2011 flood in Thailand, with an emphasis on the Chao Phraya

River Basin, and analyzes the existing plans and measures relevant to the flood risk

management of the country. It also highlights some deficiencies in current practices, and

suggests improvements using a strategic flood risk management framework. The results

indicate that the flood risk management of Thailand is ineffective and needs to shift from a

passive response (that relies mainly on structural measures and emergency responses during

a flood event) to a progressive response that emphasizes non-structural measures (e.g., land

use planning, building and development controls, regulations, etc.) and participatory

collaboration among government agencies and stakeholders (people, public, and private

agencies in the affected areas). Further studies about flood insurance for the agricultural

sector and about socioeconomic levels and perceptions in the flood risks of the target

communities are also recommended. These can improve financial resilience to flood risk and the

effectiveness of the relevant plan implementations.

Keywords: river basin; flood risk; management; natural disaster; planning; Thailand
1. Introduction

Floods are disasters that have affected a great number of people in recent years, particularly in

the Asia-Pacific region. For instance, the 2011 flood affected 67.9 million people in China

(Guha-Sapir et al. 2012) and more than 13 million people in Thailand (Ministry of Finance and

World Bank 2012). Focusing on Thailand, the likely reasons for the flooding in the country are

excessive rainfall, urbanization, land use changes, and insufficient drainage and flood protection

systems (Aon Benfield 2012; Hydro and Agro Informatics Institute 2017). According to the

flood history of Thailand over the 32-year period from 1985 to 2016, 69 major flood events were

observed (Brakenridge 2017; Guha-Sapir 2017). Of these, 15 events that lasted for a month or

more with severe consequences (in terms of affected area, lives (dead and/or displaced), and

damage costs) were recorded in 1995, 1996, 2000, 2002 – 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2016 (Table 1).

Although Thailand has experienced severe flooding, the country’s existing plans and

practices for managing flood risk are ineffective particularly with regards to the limitations on

community participation. They have been implemented under a passive paradigm that

emphasizes structural measures and emergency responses to flooding events (Hungspreug et

al. 2000), whereas a progressive paradigm of flood risk management, that gives importance

in community participation and nonstructural measures (e.g. regulations, flood education, and

land use planning) for reducing future flood risks (Cap-Net, 2011; Tingsanchali 2012), has

not been seriously considered. The mega flood in 2011 in Thailand with the severest flood

damage in many important sectors of the country, such as agriculture, manufacturing,

tourism, and domestic property (e.g., Aon Benfield 2012; Haraguchi and Lall 2015; Pathak

and Ahmad 2016) reflects the drawbacks of the relevant plans and measures under the

passive paradigm employed in the flood risk management for Thailand.

The objectives of this article are thus to (1) examine the 2011 flood in Thailand, which

mainly occurred in the Chao Phraya River Basin (2) analyze the existing plans and measures

relevant to flood risk management in Thailand, and (3) highlight some deficiencies in the

-2-
current practices and suggest improvements using a strategic flood risk management

framework, with progressive responses proposed for the river basin.

The mega flood of Thailand in 2011 and the associated flood risk management are

discussed in the second section. Existing plans and measures relevant to flood risk

management in the country and ongoing project development together with their deficiencies

are analyzed in the third section. A strategic flood risk management framework is proposed

for the Chao Phraya River Basin in the fourth section. Progressive responses and

characteristics of the proposed framework are also discussed. The last section contains the

conclusions.

2. The 2011 flood

The flood in 2011 was the worst flood Thailand experienced in more than half a century

(Gale and Saunders 2013, Table 1). The flood affected about 110,554 km2 of land in 65 of

the country’s 77 provinces (Hydro and Agro Informatics Institute 2017). The property loss

amounted to about 46.5 billion USD with the private sector suffering approximately 90% of

the total damage and about 13.57 million people were affected (Ministry of Finance and

World Bank 2012). Meanwhile, the number of deaths was reported as 813 people (Guha-

Sapir 2017). The inundation of six major industrial estates in Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya and

Pathum Thani provinces between mid-October and November 2011 accounted for about

70% of the total damage in the manufacturing sector (Ministry of Finance and World Bank

2012). Small and medium enterprises in Thailand were also severely affected by the 2011

flood (see details in Pathak and Ahmad 2016).

The 2011 flood was widespread over almost the entire Chao Phraya River Basin, which

is home to about 20 million people (30% of the total population). The river basin is located

between 1328'N, 9933'E and 166'N, 101 5'E in central Thailand, and it is relatively flat

with a gradient of 1.5 m per 100 km (DHI 2012). This causes floodwaters to drain away

-3-
slowly with long durations of flooding (Gale and Saunders 2013). The Chao Phraya River

Basin covers a 21,604 km2 area in 19 provinces, or about 4.2% of the total area of the 25

river basins of Thailand (Figure 1, Department of Water Resources, unpublished data). The

Chao Phraya is the major river in the basin, with a total length of about 379 km (PCD 1994).

The uppermost part of the river originates at the mouth of the Pak Nam Pho in Nakhon

Sawan Province. The river meanders along a north-south route passing several provinces

before emptying into the Gulf of Thailand (Figure 1).

Three key factors were speculated as the cause of the severe flooding in 2011. First, five

tropical storms hit Thailand during the rainy season and brought increased precipitation.

These included Haima (24 – 26 June), Nock-Ten (30 July – 3 August), Haitang (28

September), Nesat (30 September – 1 October), and Nalgae (5 – 6 October). Second, the

influence of the southwest monsoon from mid-May to October and an unexpected

accumulation of precipitation from January to October also influenced the flood. The

cumulative precipitation across the country (1,823 mm) at the end of October 2011was 25%,

which is more than that in the same period in 2010 (1,455 mm), and it was 28% more than

the country’s average precipitation over the previous 9 years (2002 – 2010, 426 mm) in the

same period. Similarly, the cumulative precipitation for northern Thailand at the end of

October 2011 (1,674 mm) was 31% more than that in the same period in 2010 (1,279 mm),

and 42% more than the northern average precipitation over the previous 9 years (1,176 mm)

in the same period.

The last factor was poor management of the water storage in two major dam reservoirs

(the Bhumibol and Sirikit dams) located above the Chao Phraya River Basin. Water storage

in the reservoirs reached the reservoirs’ capacities of 13,462 million m3 for the Bhumibol

and 9,510 million m3 for the Sirikit (Royal Irrigation Department 2016) dams around mid-

October, and eventually the dams’ reservoir capacities were breached at the end of October

(Figure 2). During this period, a large amount of water was suddenly released (more than

-4-
nine billion m3) from the two big dams (Aon Benfield 2012; Hydro and Agro Informatics

Institute 2012; Royal Irrigation Department, unpublished data). Consequently, the large

amount of water released downstream from the two dams amplified the widespread

inundation in many areas below them. The floodwaters ran southward to Bangkok, the

capital of Thailand.

The 2011 flood hit Bangkok around mid-October and inundated most of Bangkok. About

16,000 million m3 of floodwaters flowed past Bangkok, and it took 30 – 45 days for the entire

amount of water to reach the Gulf of Thailand (Royal Irrigation Department, unpublished data,

2012). The floodwaters did not reach all areas of Bangkok at the same time and the exact

quantities heading towards the city were unknown. This caused difficulties in managing the

floodwater. The areas hit by the floodwater did not follow Bangkok’s topography or elevation

relative to mean sea level (MSL) but were diverted by water barriers (e.g., sandbags) and/or

man-made structures (Singkran and Kandasamy 2016). The Bangkok Metropolitan

Administration (BMA) declared 42 out of the 50 metropolis districts to be emergency disaster

areas. There were 1,089,242 affected households and 133 deaths during the flood that hit

Bangkok (mid-October 2011 – early January 2012) due to drowning, electric shock, or lack of

medical treatment. The BMA provided physical and mental health counseling/treatment for the

affected people who were in need via mobile health units. After the flood ended, 1,323 serious

cases remained. These included 46 patients who were transferred to hospitals, 59 high stress

patients, 16 depressed patients, 2 patients who were likely to commit suicide, 955 patients who

received mental consultations, and 245 quarantined patients for intensively monitoring flood-

related contagious diseases (BMA's Office of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation 2012).

After it failed to protect the entire capital by diverting the floodwaters to either the

western or eastern side of Bangkok, or both, the government gave its first priority to

protecting important places and economic areas in inner Bangkok (e.g., palaces, hospitals,

and business centers) in order for them to be flood-free. Flood dikes and sandbags were

-5-
installed surrounding inner Bangkok, and floodwaters were diverted into the areas outside.

Under normal circumstances, these areas would not have been severely flooded as they are

not lower-lying areas or along flood routes like the inner areas in Bangkok. This upset

people who lived in the areas affected by the government’s flood diversion. Consequently,

e.g., people living in the Lak Hok Sub-District of Pathum Thani Province (a northern suburb

of Bangkok) dismantled the sandbags that were established along Phaholyothin Road

starting from the Rangsit Bridge to the Prapa Canal, a man-made canal for collecting raw

water to produce tap water. They also prevented officials from repairing the flood barriers

(BMA's Office of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation 2012). They wanted the floodwaters to

flow downstream naturally from more elevated areas through low-lying areas to the sea and

not stagnate in the areas they lived. As a result, the floodwaters flowed downstream into the

Prapa Canal and into some areas of inner Bangkok (Singkran and Kandasamy 2016).

The considerable impact of the 2011 flood not only caused people to lose confidence in

Thailand’s flood risk management but also required the relevant government agencies to

review all existing flood-related plans and formulate measures for improvement (Ministry of

Finance and World Bank 2012).

3. Existing plans and measures of Thailand

The relevant plans and measures for managing flood risk in Thailand have been carried out

by the assigned government agencies, whereas the public and private sectors in the flood risk

areas are rarely involved. Working under the Ministry of Interior, the Department of Disaster

Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM) is the main government agency responsible for all kinds

of disasters as indicated in the current National Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Plan

(NDPMP) 2015 (DDPM 2016). Key elements of the NDPMP include (1) implementing and

promoting disaster risk reduction, (2) integrating multi-sectoral cooperation in emergency

-6-
management, (3) enhancing measures in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, and (4)

developing and strengthening international cooperation in disaster risk management.

The NDPMP has been used as an umbrella for all relevant plans to manage flood risks at

a local level. It is a master plan that contains top-down policies (i.e., one-way

communication policies), emphasizes passive responses (e.g., emergency responses to an

existing flood event and recovery after the flood ends), and relies mainly on structural

measures (e.g., dams or dikes for controlling floods). The NDPMP lacks any aspects of

community participation (communication and consultation) and progressive responses to

deal with future and continuing flood risks (Table 2). Consequently, few operational plans

formulated under the NDPMP’s umbrella could be effectively implemented at a local level

and have attracted criticism, for example: too broad or general, inappropriate for applying to

local conditions, and so forth.

Following the 2007 National Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Act (NDPMA)

(Gazette Office 2007), the National Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Committee

(NDPMC) was set up as a national multi-sector body for policy formulation and planning for

disaster preparedness, mitigation, and response. The NDPMC is chaired by the Prime

Minister, and it includes representatives from line government agencies. These are the

Ministry of Interior, DDPM’s central Emergency Operation Center (EOC), BMA’s EOC,

provincial EOC, district EOC, and local EOC (i.e., the EOC of the municipalities, sub-

district administration offices, and Pattaya City) located in 76 provinces across the country,

excluding Pattaya City, which is a special local administration in Chonburi Province (Figure

3, DDPM 2016).

The functional structure of the NDPMC also lacks community participation at all levels.

Similarly, the top-down policies and relevant disaster management plans were formulated by

the committee without community consultation causing them to be ineffectively

implemented and/or unable to receive good cooperation from local communities. For

-7-
instance, the DDPM’s Strategic National Action Plan on Disaster Risk Reduction 2010 –

2019 (Chanachaiwiboonwat 2009) was ineffectively operated by local government agencies

during the 2011 flood. As a result, on 21st October, the Thai Government led by Prime

Minister Yingluck Shinawatra had to take full authority under Section 31 of the NDPMA for

ordering all relevant government agencies to prepare flood disaster relief, undertake

protection measures, and offer assistance to the affected people (Ministry of Finance and

World Bank 2012). Additionally, the Flood Relief Operations Center (FROC) was

established and chaired by the Justice Minister. These were the kinds of emergency

command and extra operations used to support the existing strategic plans and line agencies

that could not efficiently handle the flood situation in 2011.

The FROC comprised various experts in advising, monitoring, and setting guidelines

and measures to divert water and lessen the food impacts. However, some important aspects

were still overlooked in these measures, especially community participation and effective

communication in flood risks. These shortcomings diminished the efficiency of flood risk

management because the results of the flood risk assessment were not adequately understood

by the affected people, causing them to improperly respond to the known risk (Ministry of

Finance and World Bank 2012). Lacking effective communication by the government

agencies to deliver critical messages about flood risks to the public caused people to be

frustrated, unprepared, or distrustful of the government’s information (Jukrkorn et al. 2014;

Kittipongvises and Mino 2015).

In addition, collaboration among line government agencies at local and national levels was

ineffective and responsibilities overlapped. According to the NDPMP, confusion was

unavoidable where more than ten ministries and institutions were designated as key

implementing agencies for conducting flood risk assessments. The lack of coordination in

flood prevention and management planning across the administrative systems at all levels

brought conflicts among both the government agencies and among the communities that were

-8-
located in different administrative zones. For instance, during the 2011 flood in Bangkok, the

government did not get good cooperation from the governor of Bangkok. Different flood

management practices from the FROC and BMA were applied, causing people to be confused

about which measures they should follow or what information they should believe.

After the 2011 flood, the Thai Government’s Strategic Committee for Water Resources

Management (SCWRM) was set up with the responsibility for developing plans to prevent

future floods. The SCWRM is under the Secretariat of the Prime Minister. The committee

assigned the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) to conduct a comprehensive

flood management plan for the Chao Phraya River Basin (Table 2, JICA 2013) under a

supervisory panel including representatives from the Royal Irrigation Department and the

Department of Water Resources. Most of the sub-projects initiated as a result of the plan

emphasized structural measures to prevent or mitigate floods in the Chao Phraya River Basin,

but did not consider the impacts on neighboring areas. For instance, there was a project to

build a water diversion route to take future floodwaters from the Sakae Krang River Basin

(located to the northwest of the Chao Phraya River Basin) to the Tha Chin and Mae Klong

River Basins (located to the west of the Chao Phraya River Basin). This is a type of passive

response to flooding that tends to shift the problem spatially and temporarily to nearby river

basins. In addition, it may adversely affect people living in those river basins and lead to

public concern and disapproval of the project’s development.

The strategic plan for flood management 2015 – 2026 (Water Resources Management

and Policy Board 2015) was later launched by the current Thai government of General

Prayut Chan-o-cha (22 May 2014 – present). This plan focuses on the Chao Phraya River

Basin and it still emphasizes structural measures and passive responses to flooding. The plan

comprises feasibility studies and environmental impact assessments in the short-term (2015

– 2016) and mega-project developments (e.g., water routes or dikes) in the medium- term

(2017 – 2021) and long-term (2022 – 2026). Upon the initiation of the plan, 185 flood

-9-
projection systems are planned to be developed in Nakhon Sawan Province (located in the

upstream portion of the river basin). The major weakness of these measures include (1)

allowing development in areas with a high flood risk, (2) stimulating new developments that

may increase the flood risk in these areas, (3) causing significant damage to areas with

sensitive environments (Burby and Dalton 1994; Stevens et al. 2010), and (4) diverting

flooding to, and increasing flooding in neighboring areas. These impacts need more

investigation and mitigation. Other characteristics of the strategic plan on flood management

2015 – 2026 are included in Table 2.

Overall, various aspects of the existing plans and measures relevant to flood risk

management of Thailand need to be reviewed and improved for robust flood risk

management; with fewer overlapping responsibilities and more community participation.

4. Proposed flood risk management framework

The 2011 flood, which created the severest damage in terms of disruption and lost lives and

property damage, reflected the poor flood risk management in Thailand and the inefficiency

of the relevant plans and measures that had been used in the 21st century. Thus, it is time that

the flood risk management of the country should be shifted from a passive to a progressive

paradigm (Tingsanchali 2012) and participatory collaboration among government agencies

and stakeholders (people, public, and private agencies in the affected areas) should be

seriously included in all relevant plans and measures. Previous studies showed that flood risk

management would be affective when it was prepared in a participatory manner (Hansson et

al. 2013). For instance, the study of Hansson et al. (2013) showed that it was useful to

account for different views and preferences obtained from stakeholder participation into a

framework for multiple criteria decision making for flood risk management of the Bac Hung

Hai polder in northern Vietnam. In addition, the study by Linnerooth-Bayer et al. (2013)

- 10 -
showed that stakeholder participation in an integrated catastrophe model reached a

consensus on the design of the national insurance system in Hungary.

In this article, the strategic flood risk management framework of the Australian

Emergency Management Institute (AEMI 2013) was applied to the Chao Phraya River

Basin. The framework has effectively been used to manage flood risks in Australia,

especially in New South Wales, where flooding happens every year. It promotes community

participation and progressive measures; as well as plan preparations and improvements

through the monitoring and review of the processes at a local level. The major components

of the framework are (1) a floodplain management entity, (2) floodplain specific

management processes, and (3) communication and consultation together with monitoring and

review (Figure 3). The proposed framework’s components, under a progressive paradigm for

the Chao Phraya River Basin, are discussed below.

4.1 Floodplain management entity

A floodplain management entity (FME) should feature the current Chao Phraya River Basin

Commission (CRBC) and a technical sub-committee panel that includes practical and

academic experts in relevant fields to provide technical advice. Rather than include many

representatives from line government agencies, the functional structure of the CRBC should

be adjusted to include more representatives from local communities, environmentalists, and

non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The major tasks undertaken by the CRBC should

be shifted from passive responses (i.e., following the central policies of the NDPMC and

emphasizing disaster emergency responses when a disaster occurs) to progressive responses

for mitigation preparation in advance or in long-term flood risk reduction. These can be

conducted through the floodplain specific management processes that are discussed in the

following sections (Figure 3).

- 11 -
4.2 Floodplain specific management processes

The floodplain specific management processes include data collection, flood studies,

floodplain management studies, floodplain management plans, and plan implementation

(AEMI 2013, Figure 3). For the process of data collection, the CRBC should build a central

flood database for the river basin to collect and compile flood-related data (e.g., historic

flood levels and rainfall, topography, land use activities, drainage records, flood mitigation

measures, and related plans) that have been scattered in different formats in various

governmental agencies, academic institutions, and consulting companies. A good central

database will reduce both the financial requirements and the time the CRBC spends

collecting data from the field. Additionally, it facilitates the remaining floodplain specific

management processes.

There have been few flood studies (FS) and floodplain management studies (FMS) in

the Chao Phraya River Basin. Studies about the nature and extent of flood problems, areas at

risk, or categorization of flood hazards in the river basin are rarely found (Cooper 2014;

Liew et al. 2016; Sayama et al. 2017). Likewise, few FMS address the relationships of flood

risk to people’s lives, property, or environment (e.g., Hungspreug et al. 2000; Hungspreug et

al. 2007). This is in contrast to the fact that flood events have occurred in the Chao Phraya

River Basin every year for decades (Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation,

unpublished data). Sufficient flood-related data and studies are required to progressively

prepare floodplain management plans for the river basin. For instance, flood risk assessment

and the mapping of risk magnitudes in relation to land use changes should be conducted.

Results from these studies are useful in preparing appropriate plans/measures for local areas

with different risk magnitudes (e.g., low, moderate, high, or very high risk).

For the latter process, floodplain management plans (FMP), following the characteristics

of the flood risk management framework (Table 2), should feature progressive responses,

two-way communication of the policies for their implementation, both structural and non-

- 12 -
structural measures, and all types of flood risk. The most important aspects of the

plans/measures in relation to each type of flood risk are suggested as follows.

 Existing flood risk

This is the flood risk associated with current development in the floodplain (AEMI

2013). Since the latter half of the 20th century, flood impacts in the Chao Phraya River Basin

have increased in relation to the development expansion that have caused a decline in the

flood retention areas in the river basin (Pavelic et al. 2012). According to the existing plans

related to flood risk management (Table 2), the Thai government agencies have spent a lot of

their budget on structural measures, such as developments of dikes and other flood control

structures to protect business and important areas in the river basin (Hungspreug et al. 2000;

Vongvisessomjai 2007). After the 2011 flood, the budget was considerably increased to

develop more flood protection dikes around urban areas located alongside the Chao Phraya

River (Figure 4). These flood control structures with a height of 1-2 meters from the river

banks not only crated deeper areas for storing water during a flood event, but also conceal

the river’s scenery during normal times. Recently, some local communities, located by the

sides of the Chao Phraya River in Ang Thong province, have requested that the local

government dismantle the flood control dikes around their areas. They complained that the

height of the flood control dikes obscured them from nature and they felt like they were

living in the confined areas (Ang Thong Provincial Office of Disaster Prevention and

Mitigation, personal communication).

Rather than rely mainly on the structural measures (such as dikes and other flood

barriers), appropriate non-structural measures should be integrated into the FMP to mitigate

impacts of the existing flood risk, e.g., emergency responses, relocation of development and

rezoning to more flood-compatible purposes, change in property zoning to reduce use, and

flood insurance promotion (e.g., AEMI 2013; Ghanbarpour et al. 2014; Surminski and

Oramas-Dorta 2014; Thomas and Knüppe 2016). Emergency responses are also important

- 13 -
during a flood. The responses should be developed from a detailed understanding of the

flood mechanisms and the frequency of occurrence, and should include evacuation planning

and community participation. Both FS and FMS are necessary for preparing emergency

responses for the river basin. At present, although the existing plans for managing flood risk

in Thailand mainly emphasize emergency responses, they are rather general, excluding flood

risk data in terms of both space (areas at risk) and magnitude (low, moderate, or high risk).

These cause the existing plans to be ineffectively implemented at the local level. Community

participation in emergency responses is another key factor to gain collaboration, especially

during flood evacuation. It also creates an understanding in the community of what to

expect, what to do, how evacuation will be carried out, and where to evacuate to in the event

of a flood (Singkran and Kandasamy 2016).

 Future flood risk

This is the flood risk associated with future development on the floodplain (AEMI

2013). Understanding a flood’s likelihood and land use in the floodplain is helpful for

preparing certain measures or policies to manage future flood risks. In this article, the

frequencies of the flood events that occurred in the Chao Phraya River Basin in the recent 9-

year period (2007 – 2015; Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, unpublished

data) were examined together with major groups of land use (Table 3). High frequencies of

flooding observed across the river basin, except in some basin areas in Samut Sakhon

Province, where flood events were observed only twice during this period of time.

Meanwhile, paddy fields and other agricultural areas are a combination of land use groups

that were mainly observed in the floodplain (Development Department, unpublished data,

Table 3). The agricultural sector, including aquaculture, accounted for about 71% of the

entire floodplain; and it was severely affected by the 2011 flood. The cost of the damage in

this sector amounted to around 1,141 million USD, ranking second after the cost of damage

- 14 -
incurred by the manufacturing sector, which amounted to around 28,445 million USD

(Ministry of Finance and World Bank 2012).

Flood insurance has been recognized as a tool for increasing financial resilience

(Surminski and Oramas-Dorta 2014). After the 2011 flood in Thailand, following

Thailand’s, Emergency Decree on Disaster Insurance Promotion Fund 2012 (Gazette Office

2012), the Thai government set up the National Catastrophe Insurance Fund (NCIF) with an

insurance policy that offers coverage for damage caused by floods, earthquakes, and

windstorms. The cover limits are classified into three categories as follows. First, dwellings,

the cover limit is not more than 100,000 baht (1 bath is about 0.029 USD) with a premium

rate of 0.5% of the limit. Second, small and medium enterprises (i.e., total property sum

insured not exceeding 50,000,000 baht), the cover limit is 30% of the property sum insured

with the premium rate of 1% of the limit. Third, large industries (i.e., total property insured

over 50,000,000 baht), the cover limit is 30% of the property sum insured with the premium

rate of 1.25% of the limit (OIC 2012). However, there is no specific insurance program to

cover flood impacts in the agricultural sector in Thailand. Therefore this type of flood

insurance should be considered in the FMP.

The Thai government should promote specific flood insurance for important agricultural

activities (e.g., rice farming). This will not only help farmers, but also protect against

economic losses in the country, which is still relies mainly on agricultural produce,

particularly rice, as one of Thailand’s major export sectors. Nevertheless, more studies are

needed for developing a flood insurance program in an agricultural sector. This is to reduce

some drawbacks of the program. For example, poor farmers in Thailand, like those in other

developing countries, may be unable to purchase flood insurance with high premiums to

cover substantial risk. Meantime, if premiums are lowered, insurance companies would

experience insolvency (Hansson et al. 2008). Thus, the Thai government may have to

subsidize the flood insurance program for these farmers. Another problem, insurance

- 15 -
companies may not offer policies in areas with a high flood risk as happened with the

Hungarian flood insurance system (Linnerooth-Bayer et al. 2013).

Meanwhile, progressive responses, such as land use planning (Zhou et al. 2017) with

specific planning instruments (e.g., zoning, building and development controls, or flood access

to developed areas) and a regulation that any new development should maintain natural flow

conditions or reserve at least 5% of the basin area for detention or retention reservoirs (Cap-

Net 2011), are suggested to manage the future flood risk in the Chao Phraya River Basin. Land

use planning needs to:

- have a regulatory framework that discourages development that exacerbates the risks

and impacts of flooding in the river basin,

- anticipate and respond to market signals that should reflect the areas with long-term

flood risks (Pryce and Chen 2011),

- mitigate flood hazards and direct development away from the hazardous portion of the

floodplain (Stevens et al. 2008; Stevens and Hanschka 2014),

- exclude high flood risk areas from the development zone (e.g., housing and industrial

estates). Instead, these areas may be included in green and recreational zones (Böhm et al.

2004; Su et al. 2014; Rucinska 2015), and

- consider land appraisals and flood insurance programs that express economic incentives

to discourage developments in the floodplain with a high flood risk.

Climate change is another factor influencing future flood risks in the Chao Phraya River

Basin. Although the potential influences of climate change on flood behavior in the river basin

remain uncertain, it is expected to increase the frequency of flooding in the lower portion of

the river basin (Liew et al. 2016). Located on the southern portion of the river basin, the flood-

prone areas in Bangkok and Samut Prakan provinces was expected to see a 30% increase by

2050 and to cause about one million inhabitants to live in flood-prone areas (Panya

Consultants 2009). More studies are needed to determine the long-term relationships of

- 16 -
climate change intensifying flood risks in the Chao Phraya River. Results from these studies

will be useful for building community resilience and to support local authorities (Keur et al.

2016) to properly manage the future flood risks.

 Continuing flood risk

This is the flood risk remaining in both existing and future development areas (AEMI

2013). Although the existing measures and plans have been used to manage flood risks in the

Chao Phraya River Basin, floods still occur every year in the floodplain. For instance, the

residual flood risk in the municipality of Nakhon Sawan Province is a consequence of the

flood protection dike (Figure 4) being overwhelmed by floods larger than the designed

capacity. Continuing to live in the floodplain somewhat reflects the people’s resilience to

flood risks and the trade-offs between the benefits earned from doing business and the losses

resulting from flooding. Emergency responses (such as early flood warning systems,

evacuation routes and arrangements, etc.) and recovery planning can reduce the continuing

flood risks and strengthen community resilience to flooding (AEMI 2013). These

management measures should focus at the community level in areas at risk, keep them up-to-

date and maintained, and encourage the community to perform preparation and evacuation

rehearsals, e.g.

- early warning systems should be installed, maintained in a good condition, and

operationally tested, so that they are ready for any eventuality.

- a community emergency response plan should be prepared and rehearsed once or twice

a year, or at least before the rainy season.

- community awareness and flood readiness should be promoted through flood

education about flood risks and appropriate responses to flooding (Singkran and Kandasamy

2016).

- 17 -
 - recovery plans should be prepared based on potential flood impacts and emergency

responses in areas at risk. These plans should be up-to-date and should be easily adjusted to

actual flood impacts in that area.

Overall, under the progressive paradigm of the flood risk management framework

proposed in this article, community participation is the first priority when making relevant

and effective plans at a local level (Thompson 1996; Neuvel and Van Der knaap 2010). Two-

way communication is an effective way to facilitate community participation in the

processes of FS, FMS, and FMP. The results obtained from these processes should be

exhibited publically, discussed at community meetings, commented on by outside agencies,

and further improved upon by incorporating the reviews and feedback of stakeholders

(Singkran and Kandasamy 2016). For the final process, i.e., plan implementation, all relevant

plans for managing flood risks in the Chao Phraya River Basin should be implemented by local

government agencies to ensure that the plans can effectively reduce flood risks across the river

basin to an acceptable level. Community participation in this process can assist in keeping the

plans up-to-date and prioritize the implementation of the plans in a manner consistent with flood

risks and community support. These may be varied between developed and undeveloped (poor)

areas within the Chao Phraya River Basin. Thus, further studies, e.g., socioeconomic levels and

perceptions in flood risk of the target communities, in different area developments may be

conducted, so that appropriate plans can be specifically prepared and effectively implemented in

the associated areas (AEMI 2013; Singkran and Kandasamy 2016).

5. Conclusions

The severest impact of the 2011 flood in Thailand in terms of live lost and property damage

reflected poor flood risk management in the country. It is thus time to improve the flood risk

management of Thailand by shifting from a passive to a progressive paradigm. In this article,

a strategic flood risk management framework was proposed for the Chao Phraya River Basin

- 18 -
as an example of how comprehensive flood risk management could be implemented under a

progressive paradigm. Non-structural measures (e.g., land use planning and relevant

regulations) should be simultaneously considered together with structural measures for

managing all types of flood risk (existing, future, and continuing). Participatory

collaborations among government agencies and stakeholders should be stringently included

in all relevant plans and measures. Further studies about flood insurance for the agricultural

sector and the socioeconomic levels and perceptions of the flood risks on the target communities

are recommended.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University,

for its full support in terms of research facilities and time spent in completing the study and

Thai government agencies (Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Department of Disaster

Prevention and Mitigation, Land Development Department, Royal Irrigation Department,

and Thai Meteorological Department) for supplying the relevant data. This study was

supported by Mahidol University under grant TM 94/2557.

References

AEMI (Australian Emergency Management Institute). (2013). Managing the floodplain: a guild

to best practise in flood risk management in Australia (2 ed.), Biotext, Canberra, Australia.

Aon Benfield. (2012). 2011 Thailand floods: Event Recap Report, Impact Forecasting LLC,

Chicago.

- 19 -
BMA's Office of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (2012). "Bangkok's flood contingency

plan 2012.” (in Thai). Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Bangkok, Thailand.

Böhm, H. R., Haupter, B., Heiland, P., and Dapp, K. (2004). “Implementation of flood risk

management measures into spatial plans and policies.” River Res. Appl. 20, 255–267.

Brakenridge, G. R. (2017). “Global Active Archive of Large Flood Events.”

<http://floodobservatory.colorado.edu/Archives/index.html> (July 2, 2017).

Burby, R. J., and Dalton, L. C. (1994). "Plans can matter! The role of land use plans and

state planning mandates in limiting the development of hazardous areas." Public

administration review, 54, 229–238.

Cap-Net. (2011). “Integrated urban flood management.” <http://www.cap-net.org/training-

material/integrated-urban-flood-management/> (June 26, 2016).

Chanachaiwiboonwat, M. (2009). Strategic national action plan (SNAP) on disaster risk

reduction 2010-2019, Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, Ministry of

Interior, Bangkok, Thailand.

Cooper, R. T. (2014). "Open Data Flood Mapping of Chao Phraya River Basin and Bangkok

Metropolitan Region." British Journal of Environment & Climate Change, 4(2), 186–

216.

DDPM. (2016). “Thailand's national disaster prevention and mitigation plan 2015 (in Thai).”

<http://www.disaster.go.th/th/dwn-download-7-1/> (November 14, 2016).

DHI. (2012). Thailand Floods 2011 – The Need for Holistic Flood Risk Management, DHI-

NTU Research Centre, Singapore.

Gale, E. L., and Saunders, M. A. (2013). "The 2011 Thailand flood: climate causes and

return period." Weather, 68(9), 233–237.

Gazette Office (2007). "Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Act 2007 (in Thai). " Royal Thai

government gazette, 124(Part 52 A), 1–23.

- 20 -
Gazette Office (2012). "Emergency Decree on Disaster Insurance Promotion Fund 2012 (in

Thai)." Royal Thai government gazette, 129(Part 10 Kor), 5–10.

Ghanbarpour, M. R., Saravi, M. M., and Salimi, S. (2014). "Floodplain Inundation Analysis

Combined with Contingent Valuation: Implications for Sustainable Flood Risk

Management." Water Resources Management, 28(9), 2491–2505.

Guha-Sapir, D. (2017). "EM-DAT: The Emergency Events Database - Université catholique

de Louvain (UCL)." <http://emdat.be/emdat_db/> (July 2, 2017).

Hansson, K., Danielson, M., and Ekenberg, L. (2008). "A framework for evaluation of flood

management strategies." Journal of Environmental Management, 86, 465–480.

Hansson, K., Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L., and Buurman, J. (2013). "Multiple Criteria

Decision Making for Flood Risk Management." Integrated Catastrophe Risk Modeling:

Supporting Policy Processes, A. Amendola, T. Ermolieva, J. Linnerooth-Bayer, and R.

Mechler, eds., Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht.

Haraguchi, M., and Lall, U. (2015). "Flood risks and impacts: A case study of Thailand’s

floods in 2011 and research questions for supply chain decision making." International

Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14, 256–272.

Hungspreug, N., Chooaksorn, W., and Sangchang, S. (2007). "The Impact of Long Term

Flooding on Water Quality in the Chao Phraya River Basin, Thailand." The 4th

INWEPF Steering Meeting and Symposium, Bangkok, Thailand, 1–10.

Hungspreug, S., Khao-uppatum, W. and Thanopanuwat, S. (2000). “Flood management in

Chao Phraya River Basin.” Proceedings of the International Conference, the Chao

Phraya Delta: Historical Development, Dynamics and Challenges of Thailand’s Rice

Bowl, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, 1–20.

Hydro and Agro Informatics Institute (2017). "The 2011 mega flood record (in Thai)."

<http://www.thaiwater.net/current/flood54.html> (July 2, 2017).

- 21 -
Inchaisri, C., Supikulpong, P., Vannametee, E., Luengyosluechakul, S., Khanda, S.,

Tashnakajankorn, T., Ajariyakhajorn, K., Sasipreeyajan, J., and Techakumpu, M.

(2013). "The effect of a catastrophic flood disaster on livestock farming in Nakhon

Sawan province, Thailand." Trop Anim. Health Prod., 45, 917–922.

JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). (2013). “Project for the comprehensive

flood management plan for the Chao Phraya River Basin,” Bangkok, 1–546.

Jukrkorn, N., Sachdev, H., and Panya, O. (2014). "Community-based flood risk

management: lessons learned from the 2011 flood in central Thailand." WIT

Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, 184, 75–86.

Keur, P. v. d., Bers, C. v., Henriksen, H. J., Nibanupudi, H. K., Yadav, S., Wijaya, R.,

Subiyono, A., Mukerjee, N., Hausmann, H.-J., Hare, M., Scheltinga, C. T. v., Pearn, G.,

and Jaspers, F. (2016). "Identification and analysis of uncertainty in disaster risk

reduction and climate change adaptation in South and Southeast Asia." International

Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 16, 208–214.

Kittipongvises, S., and Mino, T. (2015). "Perception and Communication of Flood Risk:

Lessons Learned about Thailand’s Flood Crisis of 2011." Applied Environmental

Research, 37(1), 57–70.

Liew, S. C., Gupta, A., Chia, A. S., and Ang, W. C. (2016). "The flood of 2011 in the lower

Chao Phraya valley, Thailand: Study of a long-duration flood through satellite images."

Geomorphology, 262, 112–122.

Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Vári, A., and Brouwers, L. (2013). "Designing a Flood Management

and Insurance System in Hungary: A Model-Based Stakeholder Approach." Integrated

Catastrophe Risk Modeling: Supporting Policy Processes, A. Amendola, T. Ermolieva,

J. Linnerooth-Bayer, and R. Mechler, eds., Springer Science+Business Media,

Dordrecht.

- 22 -
Ministry of Finance and World Bank. (2012). “Thailand Flooding 2554: Rapid assessment

for resilient recovery and reconstruction planning.”

<http://www.undp.org/content/dam/thailand/docs/UNDP_RRR_THFloods.pdf> (Jun.

25, 2015).

Neuvel, J. M. M., and Van Der knap, W. (2010). “A spatial planning perspective for measures

concerning flood risk management.” Inter. J. Water Res. Dev., 26(2), 283–296.

NCIF (2012). "Development of the National Catastrophe Insurance Fund."

<http://www.ncif.or.th/en/history.html>(July 6, 2017).

OIC (2012). "National Catastrophe Insurance Fund 2012 (in Thai)." Insurance Circle,

Special edition, 1–4.

Panya Consultants (2009). "Climate change impact and adaptation study for Bangkok

Metropolitan region." Panya Consultants CO., LTD., Bangkok, Thailand, 1–85.

Pathak, S., and Ahmad, M. M. (2016). "Flood recovery capacities of the manufacturing

SMEs from floods: A case study in Pathumthani province, Thailand." International

Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 18, 197–205.

Pavelic, P., Srisuk, K., Saraphirom, P., Nadee, S., Pholkern, K., Chusanathas, S., Munyou,

S., Tangsutthinon, T., Intarasut, T., and Smakhtin, V. (2012). “Balancing-out floods and

droughts: Opportunities to utilize floodwater harvesting and groundwater storage for

agricultural development in Thailand.” J. Hydrol., 470–417, 55–64.

PCD (1994). "The Pollution Control Department’s notification: Classification of surface

water source in the Chao Phraya River (in Thai)." Royal Thai government gazette,

111(62 Ngor), 291–293.

Pryce, G., and Chen, Y. (2011). “Flood risk and the consequences for housing of a changing

climate: An international perspective.” Risk Manage., 13(4), 228–246.

Royal Irrigation Department. (2016). “Large reservoir data conclusion of the country.”

http://water.rid.go.th/flood/flood/res_table.htm> (Sep. 23, 2016), (in Thai).

- 23 -
Rucinska, D. (2015). “Spatial distribution of flood risk and quality of spatial management:

Case study in Odra Valley, Poland.” Risk Anal., 35(2), 241–251.

Sayama, T., Tatebe, Y., and Tanaka, S. (2017). "An emergency response-type rainfall-

runoff-inundation simulation for 2011 Thailand floods." Journal of Flood Risk

Management, 10, 65–78.

Singkran, N., and Kandasamy, J. (2016). “Developing a strategic flood risk management

framework for Bangkok, Thailand.” Nat. Hazards, 84(2), 933–957.

Stevens, M. R., Berke, P. R., and Song, Y. (2008). “Protecting people and property: the

influence of land-use planners on flood hazard mitigation in New Urbanist

developments.” J. Environ. Plann. and Man., 51(6), 737–757.

Stevens, M. R., and Hanschka, S. (2014)."Multilevel Governance of Flood Hazards: Municipal

Flood Bylaws in British Columbia, Canada." Nat. Hazards Rev., 15(1), 74–87.

Stevens, M. R., Song, Y., and Berke, P. R. (2010). “New Urbanist developments in flood-prone

areas: safe development, or safe development paradox?” Nat. Hazards, 53, 605–629.

Su, W., Ye, G., Yao, S., and Yang, G. (2014). “Urban land pattern impacts on floods in a

new district of China.” Sustainability, 6, 6488–6508.

Surminski, S., and Oramas-Dorta, D. (2014). "Flood insurance schemes and climate

adaptation in developing countries." International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 7,

154–164.

Tingsanchali, T. (2012). “Flood disaster and risk management in developing countries.” K-

water & Thailand "Joint Conference on 3G IWRM". Bangkok, Thailand, 171–193.

Thomas, F., and Knüppe, K. (2016). "From Flood Protection to Flood Risk Management:

Insights from the Rhine River in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany." Water Resources

Management, 30(8), 2785–2800.

Thompson, P. M. (1996). “Operation and maintenance performance and conflicts in flood-

control projects in Bangladesh.” Inter. J. Water Res. Dev., 12(3), 311–328.

- 24 -
Water Resources Management and Policy Board. (2015). “Strategic and Water Resources

Management Plan (full version).”

<http://oopm.rid.go.th/watermanagement/StrategicPlanMain.pdf> (Sep. 23, 2016), (in Thai).

Vongvisessomjai, S. (2007). “Flood Mitigation Master Plan for Chao Phraya Delta.”

Proceedings of 4th INWEPF Steering Meeting and Symposium, Bangkok, Thailand, 1–15.

Zhou, Z., Liu, S., Zhong, G., and Cai, Y. (2017). "Flood Disaster and Flood Control

Measurements in Shanghai." Nat. Hazards Rev., 10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000213.

Figure 1

The Chao Phraya River Basin covering areas in most or some of 19 provinces (Department

of Water Resources, unpublished data).

Figure 2

Water storage in the Bhumibol (a) and Sirikit (b) dams in mid-month and at the end of each

month in the year (2010) before, during (2011), and after (2012) the 2011 flood (Royal

Irrigation Department, 2016).

Figure

The functional structures of the National Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Committee of

Thailand (a, DDPM, 2016) and the proposed flood risk management framework (b, AEMI,

2013) for the Chao Phraya River Basin.

Figure 4

- 25 -
Examples of structural measures for flood protection in the Chao Phraya River Basin: (a) the

flood protection dyke by the side of the Chao Phraya River in the municipality of Nakhon

Sawan Province and (b) a flood protection alongside of the Chao Phraya River in Pa Mok

district of Ang Thong Province.

Figure 1

- 26 -
 Fig. 2
0
10,000
0
10,000
12,000
14,000

2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
15Jan 15Jan
31Jan 31Jan
15Feb 15Feb
28Feb 28Feb
15Mar 15Mar
31Mar 31Mar
Storage volume (million m3)

15Apr 15Apr

Minimum storage
Minimum storage
30Apr 30Apr
15May 15May
31May 31May
15Jun 15Jun

- 27 -
30Jun 30Jun
15Jul 15Jul

Maximum storage
Maximum storage

31Jul 31Jul
15Aug 15Aug
31Aug 31Aug

2010
2010

15Sep 15Sep
30Sep 30Sep
15Oct 15Oct
31Oct 31Oct

2011
2011

15Nov 15Nov
30Nov 30Nov
3,800

15Dec 15Dec
2,850
9,510

2012
2012
13,462

(a)

(b)
31Dec 31Dec
 (a) (b)

Figure 3

(a)

- 28 -
(b)

Figure 4
Table 1 Historical flood events in Thailand over a 32-year period (1985 – 2016) with flood

durations of a month or more. The details for all flood events were taken from the Dartmouth

Flood Observatory (Brakenridge 2017) if the data sources were not specified.

Area People

Ye Flood duration affect (individual) Damage

Region Main cause
ar (days) ed De Displa ($USD)

(km2) ad ced

20 5 Aug 11 – 9 Jan 110,5 81 165,0 46,500,00 Tropical storms,

11 12 (158) 54a 3b 00c 0,000c Across Thailand monsoonal rain

20 20 Aug – 13 Dec 213,0 19 2,000,

06 (116) 81 5 000 8,100,000 North Monsoonal rain

19 1 Aug – 9 Nov 444,4 26 4,220, 240,000,0

95 (101) 98 0 000 00 North, Central Heavy rain

20 18 Aug – 26 Nov 371,5 400,0 32,000,00 North,

02 (101) 96 65 00 0 Northeast Monsoonal rain

- 29 -
20 17 Sep – 2 Dec 139,6

02 (77) 84 1 3,000 n/a Central, East Monsoonal rain

20 1 Dec 16b – 7 62,20 1,000,

16 Feb 17 (69) 8 96 000 25,000b South Heavy rain

North,

20 5 Sep – 10 Nov 299,9 17,00 Northeast,

07 (67) 72 10 0 n/a Central Monsoonal rain

20 10 Oct – 10 Dec 25 Central,

10 (62)b 3,874 8b 0 332,000b Northeast Heavy rain

20 6 Aug – 3 Oct 378,0 60,00 Northeast,

04 (59) 45 11 0 n/a Central Monsoonal rain

20 23 Nov 05 – 12 70,52 700,0 14,900,00

05 Jan 06 (51) 1 69 00 0 South Monsoonal rain

20 13 Aug – 26 Sep 134,2 119,2

05 (45) 87 21b 70 121,000b North Monsoonal rain

North,

19 18 Jul – 21 Aug 314,3 343,3 13,500,00 Northeast,

96 (35) 00 29 86 0 South Tropical cyclone

20 17 Aug – 20 Sep 51,69 150,0

02 (35) 9 2 00 n/a North Heavy rain

20 11 Jul – 10 Aug 119,9 25,00

00 (31) 20 33 0 6,000,000 Northeast Monsoonal rain

20 12 Sep – 12 Oct 314,8 10,00 North,

03 (31) 96 7 0 3,690,000 Northeast Monsoonal rain

a
Hydro and Agro Informatics Institute (2017), bGuha-Sapir (2017), cMinistry of Finance & World

Bank (2012), n/a = not available

Table 2 Existing and proposed plans and their characteristics relevant to flood risk

management for the Chao Phraya River Basin.

- 30 -
Plans/frame Tim Response Communica Measures Commu Type of flood risk

work e tion nity considered

perio
Passi Progres One Two Struct Non- participa Existi Futu Continu
d
ve sive - - ural struct tion ng re ing

way way ural

Existing

 National Past-          

Disaster pres

Prevention ent

and

Mitigation

Plan

(NDPMP)

 Strategic 2010          

National -

Action Plan 2011

on Disaster

Risk

Reduction

2010 –

2019

 2013          

Comprehen

sive flood

managemen

t plan for

the Chao

Phraya

- 31 -
River Basin

 Strategic 2015          

plan for -

flood pres

managemen ent

t 2015 –

2026

Proposed

Flood risk Futu          

managemen re

framework

 = available or emphasize,  = not available or not emphasize

Table 3 Nineteen provinces, showing their percentage areas and land use, located in the

Chao Phraya River Basin and the frequencies of floods that occurred over the last 9-year

period (2007 – 2015; Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, unpublished data).

The land use data observed during 2011 – 2015 in the river basin (Land Development

Department, unpublished data) have been categorized into eight groups. The land use groups

with a percentage area of 40% or more are shown in bold type.

Area Land use groups inside the basin (%)a

No.
Total insid
of
Province area e the
flood
(km2) basin LU
s
(%) LU1 2 LU3 LU4 LU5 LU6 LU7 LU8

65.

Ang Thong 949 86.3 13.7 0.7 1 9.6 1.2 4.8 4.8 0.0 11

62.

Bangkok 1,569 96.2 4 2.1 14.8 3.4 7.9 0.2 6.4 2.8 10

- 32 -
 49.

Chachoengsao 5,238 12.7 10.3 3.9 7 2.0 24.8 0.3 6.3 2.7 8

72.

Chai Nat 2,464 36.7 11.9 0.6 7 6.0 0.1 2.9 0.7 5.0 12

Kamphaeng Phet 8,619 6.4 4.7 0.8 29.3 63.2 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.6 17

41. 12.

Lop Buri 6,291 52.2 6.9 0.3 7 34.9 0.3 0 1.4 2.4 8

59. 12.

Nakhon Nayok 2,143 4.0 13.6 0.7 6 7.0 5.2 0.0 0 2.0 6

43.

Nakhon Sawan 9,504 64.2 5.9 0.5 6 33.7 0.1 5.4 8.2 2.5 15

55.

Nonthaburi 633 58.6 0 2.8 18.8 17.1 0.0 0.0 2.7 3.4 5

40. 11.

Pathum Thani 1,520 98.6 24.6 3.3 3 13.4 3.7 0.0 0 3.8 7

12,42 66. 13.

Phetchabun 1 6.2 3.7 0.1 13.1 8 0.0 7 1.6 0.9 12

86.

Phichit 4,321 3.4 4.9 0.3 1 3.8 0.0 0.7 2.9 1.2 15

Phra Nakhon Si 72.

Ayutthaya 2,534 89.6 13.0 2.9 7 3.4 1.1 0.1 3.2 3.7 12

100. 42.

Samut Prakan 960 0 29.5 7.1 5.3 0.6 7 2.1 6.4 6.2 6

67.

Samut Sakhon 864 6.2 14.8 3.2 0.0 0.0 7 1.9 8.0 4.5 2

65.

Saraburi 3,505 20.2 8.8 2.1 6 14.3 1.5 3.4 2.4 1.8 12

100. 70.

Sing Buri 832 0 13.4 1.5 2 8.3 0.3 0.0 1.0 5.4 10

Suphan Buri 5,406 1.1 10.3 0.1 49. 34.4 0.9 0.0 1.0 3.5 10

- 33 -
 8

10. 25.

Uthai Thani 6,652 0.2 13.8 0.0 20.6 22.7 0.0 9 6.6 4 13

a
Land use groups: urban and built-up areas (LU1), industrial areas (LU2), paddy fields

(LU3), other agricultural areas (LU4), aquacultures (LU5), forests (LU6), miscellaneous

areas (LU7), and water bodies (LU8).

- 34 -