1. Home
  2. Our Thoughts

Reimagining Flood Resilience in Chiang Mai: Lessons from the 2024 Crisis

On 10 September 2025 by SPP

Author: Bilha D. Jepkemei

Advisor: Piyapong Boossabong

Introduction

In October of 2024, the Northen Thailand region was hit by devastating floods. Despite the National Disaster Risk Management plan policies being in place there was lack of real time coordination among implementing government departments that led to displacement of over 100,000 people, loss of lives and damage of property of upto 60 billion baht in the region, hence labeled as the worst flood crisis in 80 years. This policy brief highlights the weakness in implementation points as well as proposing actionable ways to build long-term urban flood resilience in Chiang Mai.

The Policy Problem

Chiang Mai’s urban flood crisis of 2024 showed existence of gaps between national policy frameworks and its implementation phases. The disaster exposed the following:

  1. Delay in release of evacuation orders caused by unreliable early warning systems.
  2. With 13 government departments involved there was lack of clear coordination protocol.
  3. Inadequate data integration where real-time hydrological data was unavailable at the point of decision.
  4. Lack of community engagement in disaster preparedness left populations vulnerable populations unprepared.

These failures were institutional and highlight the urgent need for adaptive, decentralized and participatory flood governance.

Comparative Insights: What Worked Elsewhere
City Key Innovation Outcome
Brisbane Decentralized anticipatory budgeting Faster emergency response
Rotterdam “Room for the River” spatial planning Reduced flood impact in urban zones
New Orleans Post-Katrina flood zoning and building codes Stronger local enforcement mechanisms
Policy Options
Policy option Advantages Disadvantages
1. Maintain Status Quo Low cost in short term. Continued high vulnerability and response delay.
2. Centralized upgrades to infrastructure only Visible and politically correct. Actors not involved in taking responsibility.
3. Adaptive, Decentralized Governance Reform (Preferred) -Promotes local inter-agency coordination.

-Integrated data use.

 Requires institutional reform and capacity building.
Policy Recommendations

This paper proposes that the actors should:

  1. Enact a Provincial Resilience Act that Grants the local governments autonomy to issue evacuation orders and access emergency funds.
    2. Integrate Real-Time Data Systems from Research institutions, meteorological, hydrological and municipal systems on an open-access dashboard.
    3. Formally establish Community Resilience groups to participate in disaster planning and preparedness.
    4. Update Chiang Mai’s urban zoning maps with flood-risk overlays while restricting development in vulnerable zones.
    5. Partner with Higher education institutions of research to train government officials in adaptive governance, emergency planning and inter-agency coordination.
    6. Institutionalize Post-Disaster Reviews to revise protocols and Standard Operating Procedures.
Next Steps & Future Research

The study proposes the use of simulation models to test policy performance under future climate disaster scenarios. Key proposed tools include:

  1. DPSIR Flood Resilience Model to map climate drivers, institutional pressure points and possible response pathways.
  2. Institutional Simulation Model to test agency response and decision frameworks.
  3. Futures Scenario Planning to project flood disaster outcomes under long-term flood recurrence cycles.
Conclusion

The flood in Chiang Mai in 2024 served as a warning. The city will continue to be at high risk in the absence of structural changes in disaster governance. Reactive disaster management should give way to proactive resilience building, which is supported by integrated data, local empowerment and global best practices.

References
  • Asian Development Bank (2021) Thailand: Urban Climate Resilience Project. Available at: https://www.adb.org (Accessed: 20 July 2025).
  • Brisbane City Council (2022) Flood Resilience Strategy 2022–2032. Brisbane: BCC Publications.
  • Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM), Thailand (2020) National Disaster Risk Management Plan 2020–2024. Bangkok: Ministry of Interior.
  • Jongman, B. et al. (2014) ‘Increasing stress on disaster-risk finance due to large floods’, Nature Climate Change, 4(4), pp. 264–268.
  • Komolafe, A.O., Herath, S. and Avtar, R. (2018) ‘Flood vulnerability and risk assessment in urban areas of developing countries’, Journal of Environmental Management, 206, pp. 134–143.
  • Martikalini, C. (2024). Policy learning in collaborative government: A framework for adaptive and resilient public policy. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 8(6), 9142–9157. Crossref. https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v8i6.3954
  • Mees, H., Driessen, P. and Runhaar, H. (2019) ‘Responsive governance in flood risk management: A comparative analysis of strategies in Rotterdam and New Orleans’, Environmental Science & Policy, 97, pp. 20–30.
  • National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC), Thailand (2021) Twelfth National Economic and Social Development Plan. Bangkok: NESDC.
  • New Orleans Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (2021) Post-Katrina Recovery Report: 15 Years of Progress. New Orleans: City of New Orleans.
  • Phichet, M., S., K., A., P., Wandee, S., Nutta, T., J., L., & C., P. (2022). Climatic and Hydrological Factors Affecting the Assessment of Flood Ha zards and Resilience Using Modified UNDRR Indicators: Ayutthaya, Thail and. Water. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14101603
  • Prianto, A. L., Abdillah, A., & Yama, A. (2024). Multi-Level Governance as A Climate Change Adaptation Strategy In the Coastal Cities In Indonesia And Thailand. Journal of Government and Politics (JGOP), 6, 12–26. https://doi.org/10.31764/jgop.v6i1.24292
  • Proverbs, D., & Lamond, J. (2009). Resilience to flooding: Lessons from international comparison. Proceedings of The Ice – Urban Design and Planning, 162, 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.2009.162.2.63
  • Saksena, S. and Garschagen, M. (2022) ‘Decentralization in disaster governance: challenges and opportunities in Southeast Asia’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 73, 102896.
  • UNDRR (2020) Words into Action: Governance for Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.