Day_170 : The methodology of the Research on the communities and workers sustainability in the industrial complex area affected by the 2011 Chao Phraya Flood  

Basically, we proceed with a top-down process for the research. The followings are the outlines of the procedures for the surveys: 1) Rojana Industrial Park and Japanese companies and their responsible persons 2) Communities: Community leaders, employees, and critical facilities and their responsible persons.

1) Rojana Industrial Park and Japanese companies and their responsible persons
The followings are the reasons why Japanese companies and why Rojana Industrial Park in the central region of Thailand are selected for the project. The first, 451 of 804 inundated companies in the central region of Thailand caused by the 2011 flood were Japanese related (Tokyo Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., 2011). The second, the Rojana Industrial Park, is one of the seven inundated industrial parks in the central region of Thailand. Rojana Industrial Park is also deeply related to the Japanese company because Rojana Industrial Park was established as a joint venture between Japanese (Nippon Steel & Sumikin Bussan Corporation) and Thai (Vinichbutr’s Group) companies in 1983. The Japanese target companies are mainly selected through the connections with the Japanese Chamber of Commerce Bangkok and Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO). The responsible persons are chosen totally up to the companies. The representative Japanese and Thai managers and persons in charge of BCP or risk management of the companies are chosen to meet our needs. We conduct focus group interviews and questionnaire surveys for the above persons and employees in the companies. Questionnaires are distributed and collected in the box in the canteen of the companies.

2) Communities: Community leaders, employees, and critical facilities and their responsible persons
A top-down approach in data collection is applied by gaining the necessary authorization from the senior-level officials such as Chief of DDPM Ayutthaya and Chief district office, which subsequently facilitated reaching out to Tambon and Mooban leaders through the District office. This approach proved useful in establishing the proper and assured contacts to conduct the surveys in the target area.

Firstly, we ask permission to do surveys from the Ayutthaya governor and the chief of the DDPM Ayutthaya office. Second, we are introduced to meet the target Amphoe Uthai chief and ask him to communicate with the four target Tambon leaders. Third, we asl Tambon leaders to introduce the thirty-five Muban leaders and also the persons in critical facilities in the area. After the process, we conduct the employees’ surveys. The target persons, 400, are randomly selected with the recognition of the Muban leaders based on the Yamane formula. We also proceed with the interview surveys to our prioritized twenty-five critical facilities acknowledged by the Tambon and Muban leaders. The representatives or the persons in charge of risk management in the critical facilities are required to answer the questions.

Day_169: The 2011 Chao Phraya River Flood Literature Reviews

Regarding the published literature, there are several approaches to investigate the 2011 flood.
Mark and Lebel (Mark and Lebel, 2016) describe how Thailand’s incomplete decentralization and administrative fragmentation has created numerous barriers to polycentric disaster governance.

Hagiwara et al. (2014) explained the chain reactions of the economic damage mainly derived from the experience of Japanese enterprises and points out issues that disrupted their businesses. That paper focused on the risk management changes of the firms after the 2011 flood, indicating they have strengthened their flood countermeasures as a whole, but points to the need to consider more about the collaborations with business partners or other entities.

Okazumi and Nakasu (2013) (2015) examined the devastating exacerbation of economic damage through a social background perspective and enterprise inter-relationships.

Nakasu (2017) clarified the reasons why so many Japanese companies moved to the potential risk area in Thailand. The reasons are from the perspective of both the country’s social factors through decentralization policies facilitated by the Thai government and also yen appreciation triggered by the Plaza agreement (1985) and the Lehman Brother’s bankruptcy (2008) to propel Japanese enterprise relocation and advancement.

Haraguch and L. Upmanu (2015) emphasized the decision-making process of enterprises to clarify the trigger of economic damage. That paper proposed measures for related supply chain risk through setting research questions such as private investment decision-making, the diversified sources of procurement, emergent assistance from other partner companies in the same supply chain, and the degree of the recovery of customers.

Tamada et al. (2013) approached the subject mainly from economic, political, hydrological, and technological perspectives with various authors. That book clarified the complexity of the 2011 flood and overviewed how human interventions affect the disaster, such as local people’s lifestyle changes before the disaster, the establishment of the industrial complexes in the area, government agency conflicts, dam operation impacts, unexpected rainfall, and private company reactions.

Singkran (2017) reviewed the 2011 flood from disaster management views and emphasized the need for more non-structural countermeasures and participatory collaboration among stakeholders for effective disaster management.

Hagiwara, Y, Kuribayashi, D, Okazumi, T, Nakasu, T. (2014). Characteristics of the Chain-Reaction Damage of the Japanese Firms Affected by the 2011 Thai Flood, Advances in River Engineering Vol.20, pp.397 – 402(in Japanese)

Haraguchi, M and Upmanu, L. (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.

Japanese Chamber of Commerce, Bangkok. (2012). 2011 Economic Overview of Thailand(2011/2012). Japanese Chamber of Commerce, Bangkok.

Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST). (2019). Regional Resilience Enhancement through Establishment of Area-BCM at Industry Complexes in Thailand: Enhance regional resilience through visualization of disaster risks with industry, government and academia collaboration. SATREPS (Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable Development) Project https://www.jst.go.jp/global/english/kadai/h2908_thailand.html accessed March 20, 2019

JETRO. (2012). Special Topics: Information on Thai Flood Disaster Recovery, Tokyo (in Japanese). http://www.jetro.go.jp/world/asia/th/flood/ accessed June 20, 2012.

Marks D and Lebel L. (2016). Disaster governance and the scalar politics of incomplete decentralization: fragmented and contested responses to the 2011 floods in Central Thailand. Habitat Int Decentralizing Disaster Gov Spec Issue 52:57–66.

Marks, D. (2019). Assembling the 2011 Thailand floods: Protecting farmers and inundating high-value industrial estates in a fragmented hydro-social territory. Political Geography, 68, 66-76.

Nakasu, T, Okazumi, T. and Shimizu, Y. (2013). Establishment of Industrial Areas and New Risk Management: Chain Reactions of Economic Damage caused by 2011 Thailand Chao Phraya River Flood Disasters and Local Societies. The Journal of Urban Social Studies,No.5, 2013, 159-169.

Nakasu, T. (2017). Natural Disasters and Disaster Management in Thailand: Status, Risks, and Trends.13th International Conference on Thai Studies.

Office of the National Economic and Social Development Boad (NESDB). (2016). The National Economic and Social Development Plan.Retrieved May 4, 2017.

Okazumi, T. and Nakasu, T. (2015). Lessons learned from two unprecedented disasters in 2011–Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan and Chao Phraya River flood in Thailand. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 13, 200-206.

Singkran, N. (2017). Flood risk management in Thailand: Shifting from a passive to a progressive paradigm. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 25, 92-100.

Sukekawa, S.(2013). Impacts on Industries and Enterprises Caused by the Thai 2011 Great Flood. In Thai 2011 Great Flood. Chiba: IDE-JETRO. (in Japanese)

Tamada, Y.Hoshikawa, K. Funatsu, T. ed. (2013). The 2011 Great Flood: Records and Lessons. In Thai 2011 Great Flood. Chiba: IDE-JETRO(in Japanese).

Tokyo Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co.,Ltd.(2011). Lessons Learned from the 2011 Thailand Flood Disaster: Points of flood risk countermeasures in overseas bases.

Day_132_Area BCM (1)

In 2011, Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami (GEJET) disaster and the Chao Phraya River flood disaster made huge economic damages. They are in the top 10 costliest natural disasters (The very top and the 7th) in the world as you can see the following table.


Source: NatCatSERVICE/Munich RE 2016

From the historical point of views, the disaster trends from human sufferings to economic damages. The following figure shows the economic damage tendency is increasing with time and we can see the year of 2011 was an outstanding.


Source: EM-DAT

Especially, the globalization of the economic activities reflect these damages.In the event of large-scale disaster, a business sector is limited in its abilities to cope with disaster without the cooperative approach taken by the stakeholders of the public and private sectors in those areas.

With this situation, the concept of the Area Business Continuity Management (Area BCM) was revealed. This is a cooperative approach by those who wish to improve capacity for continuity and/or early recovery of business in their area in the event of disasters that affect the entire area(AHA CENTRE et al., 2015).

AHA CENTRE, JICA, et al., (2015) Planning Guide for Area Business Continuity: Area BCM Toolkits Version 2

sponsored link