The Impact of the 2011 Floods, and Flood Management on Thai Households

  • Nipon Poaponsakorn
  • Pitsom Meethom
  • Kamphol Pantakua
Part of the Risk, Governance and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 18)


This chapter describes the causes of the major flooding in Thailand in 2011, and discusses the government' s quick response in drafting a flood management master plan and allocating USD 11,290 million for assistance and compensation for flood victims, restoration of damaged property, and implementation of the master plan. The weakness of the master plan is also pointed out.

After revising the World Bank's estimates of loss of agricultural output, the study develops the "difference-in-difference” method to estimate the impact of the flooding on household income and expenditure in 26 flooded provinces. It matches the addresses of flooded households taken from the 2011 Socio-economic Survey, which did not have questions regarding the impact of floods, with the flooded areas from satellite radar images. Quantile regressions are employed to quantify the differential impact of the flood on households with different income levels.

The results show that the flooding reduced total household expenditures by 5.7% to 14%. These findings are consistent with the reported negative national GDP growth of 8.9 % in the fourth quarter of 2011 when Thailand was flooded. One interesting finding is that the 2011 floods had a significantly negative impact on the income and expenditure of middle and high income households, but that its impact on poor households was not statistically significant. The study also finds that the 2011 floods had a negative impact on the money and wage incomes of some middle income households living in the flooded areas. All estimated coefficients in the business income regression are not statistically significant. Comparing farmers’ income in the 2011 Socio-economic Survey with that in 2009, the study also finds that the 2011 flooding had a large negative impact on the farm profits of some middle income households in the flooded provinces.

Finally, the study discusses some policy implications.


Quantile Regression Household Expenditure Fourth Quarter Flood Management Central Plain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bangkok biznews. (2011). Mismanagement-wrong decision, great flood resulted from politics (in Thai). Bangkokbiznews, 8th Nov. 2011, N.p. decision…flood caused by politics (in Thai).html (accessed June 29, 2012).
  2. Department of Agricultural Extension. (2012). Report on Impact of Flood on Farmers. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative. May-December 2011. Bangkok, n.p.Google Scholar
  3. Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, Ministry of Interior (DDPM). (2011). Report on flood in 2011. January 2012.Google Scholar
  4. Department of Land Development. (2010). Land Use Survey 2006-2009. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative. Bangkok.Google Scholar
  5. EGAT. (2012). Fact: Water drainage management of Bhumibol and Sirikit dams, (in Thai) Power Purchase Agreement Division. EGAT, n.d. facts on water discharge from Bhumibol and Sirikit Dams (in Thai)-htm (accessed June 29, 2012)
  6. Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT). (1984–2011). Data on irrigated water management at major dams.Google Scholar
  7. Firpo, S., Fortin, N., & Lemieux, T. (2009). Unconditional quantile regression. Econometrica, 77(3), 953–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. GISTDA. (2011). Radar satellite images and flood maps of the 2011 flood, May-December 2011.Google Scholar
  9. Komchadluek. (2011). Banhan criticizes scholars, Says Prime Minister pass the test (in Thai) Komchadluek Online. N.p., n.d. criticized academia - prime minister passes the test (in Thai).html. Accessed 29 June 2012.
  10. National Statistical Office (NSO). (2011). The 2011 Socio-economic Survey.Google Scholar
  11. Royal Irrigation Department (RID). (2011). Information on the irrigated water management at major sluice gates and canals. Google Scholar
  12. Strategic Committee for Water Resource Management. (2012). Master Plan on Water Resource Management. Office of the SCWRM and National Economic and Social Development Board. Bangkok, n.p. January 2012.Google Scholar
  13. Suppaisarn, C. (2008). Land management and flood plain development project for Chao Phraya Basin’s flood relief following HM the King’s monkey cheek concept at Bang Ban. Manual of Development Project: Process and Maintenance of Monkey Cheek Reservoirs at Bang Ban 5.Google Scholar
  14. Suppaisarn, C. (2011). Medium and heavy flood management in Chao Phraya river basin following the royal initiative. TRF Seminar, 2 Dec. 2011.Google Scholar
  15. Thairath. (2011). Chainart locals furious, Banhan protects Suphanburi (in Thai). Thairath Online. 24th Sept. 2011. N.p. Accessed 29 June 2012.
  16. Tobunmee, Weerapan (2012). Review lesson of 2011 flood: Look forward to the future, Dailynews [Bangkok] 25 Jan
  17. World Bank. (2012). Thai flood 2011. Rapid assessment for resilient recovery and reconstruction planning. Bangkok: The World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nipon Poaponsakorn
    • 1
  • Pitsom Meethom
    • 1
  • Kamphol Pantakua
    • 1
  1. 1.Thailand Development Research InstituteBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations