Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal An integrated approach to natural disaster 

management: Public project management and its critical success factors Tun Lin Moe Pairote 
Pathranarakul Article information: To cite this document: Tun Lin Moe Pairote Pathranarakul, (2006),"An 
integrated approach to natural disaster management", Disaster Prevention and Management: An 
International Journal, Vol. 15 Iss 3 pp. 396 - 413 Permanent link to this document: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09653560610669882 
Downloaded on: 24 August 2014, At: 00:40 (PT) References: this document contains references to 30 other 
documents. To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com The fulltext of this document has been 
downloaded 4179 times since 2006* 
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 352589 [] For Authors 
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors 
service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for 
all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com 
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a 
portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive 
range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and 
TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also 
works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. 
*Related content and download information correct at time of download. 
 
DPM 15,3 
396 
Disaster Prevention and Management Vol. 15 No. 3, 2006 pp. 396-413 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0965-3562 DOI 
10.1108/09653560610669882 
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0965-3562.htm 

An integrated approach to natural disaster management Public project management and its critical success 
factors Tun Lin Moe School of Management, Shinawatra University, Pathumthani, Thailand, and Pairote 
Pathranarakul National Institute of Development Administration, Bangkok, Thailand 
Abstract Purpose – With an aim to develop an integrated approach for effectively managing natural disasters, this paper has three 
research objectives. First, it provides a framework for effective natural disaster management from a public project management 
perspective. Second, it proposes an integrated approach for successfully and effectively managing disaster crisis. Third, it 
specifies a set of critical success factors for managing disaster related public projects. Design/methodology/approach – A detailed 
case study of the tsunami was carried out to identify specific problems associated with managing natural disaster in Thailand. 
Findings – The investigations reveal that the country lacked a master plan for natural disaster management including prediction, 
warning, mitigation and preparedness, unspecified responsible governmental authority, unclear line of authority, ineffective 
collaboration among institutions in different levels, lack of encouragement for participation of local and international NGOs, lack 
of education and knowledge for tsunami in potential disaster effected communities, and lack of information management or 
database system. Research limitations/implications – This study identifies the specific problems associated with natural disasters 
management based on a detailed case study of managing tsunami disaster in Thailand in 2004. Practical implications – The 
proposed integrated approach which includes both proactive and reactive strategies can be applied to managing natural disasters 
successfully in Thailand. Originality/value – This paper highlights the importance of having proactive and reactive strategies for 
natural disaster management. Keywords Natural disasters, Tidal waves, Project management, Thailand Paper type Conceptual 
paper 
Introduction According to the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR, 2002), there are two 
main origins of hazards, namely natural and technological disasters. Natural disasters include three specific groups: 
(1)  Hydro-meteorological  disasters.  Including  floods  and  wave  surges,  storms,  droughts  and  related  disasters 
(extreme temperatures and forest/scrub fires), and landslides and avalanches. 
 
(2) Geophysical disasters. Divided into earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanic 
eruptions. (3) Biological disasters. Covering epidemics and insect infestations. 
The technological disasters comprise three groups, which are: 
(1) Industrial accidents. Such as chemical spills; collapses of industrial 
infrastructures; explosions; fires, gas leaks; poisoning; radiation. (2) Transport accidents. By air, rail, road or 
water means of transport. (3) Miscellaneous accidents. Collapses of domestic/non-industrial structures; 
explosions; fires. 
Natural  disasters,  whether  of  meteorological  origin  such  as  cyclones,  floods,  tornadoes  and  droughts  or  of  having 
geological  nature  such  as  earthquakes  and  volcanoes,  are  well  known  for  their  devastating  impacts  on  human  life, 
economy  and  environment.  With  tropical  climate  and  unstable  landforms,  coupled  with  high  population  density, 
poverty,  illiteracy  and  lack  of  infrastructure  development,  developing  countries  are  more  vulnerable  to  suffer  from 
the  damaging potential of such disasters (Jayaraman et al., 1997, p. 291). In the UN/ISDR (2002), the higher level of 
impact  was  found  in  terms  of  number  of  people  killed  and  economic  damages  due  to  natural  and  technological 
disasters  in  developing  and  least  developing  countries  during  1994  and  2003(Tables  I  and  II).  In  Thailand,  about 
28.9 million people have been affected by the disasters during 1994 and 2003 (UN/ISDR, 2002). 
It  is  commonly  agreeable  that  there  is  no  way  of  neutralizing  all  negative  impacts  resulted  from  disasters. 
However,  efforts  can be made in order to reduce their impacts. In this regard, effective disaster management is a key 
element in good governance 
Natural disasters Technological disasters Development Group Hydro-meteorological 
Geological Biological Technological 
OECD  1,82,330.66  2,26,219.76  128.48  5,804.26  CEE  þ  CIS  13,282.49  544.42  0.00  224.80  Developing  countries  2,06,600.36 
20,449.01 127.77 1,612.52 Least developed countries 6,826.91 139.96 4.06 58.94 
Source: ISDR (www.unisdr.org) 
Natural disasters Technological disasters Development group Hydro-meteorological 
Geological Biological Technological 
OECD  4.465  2.316  0.023  0.910  CEE  þ  CIS  1.085  0.499  0.156  1.374  Developing  countries  3.719  1.567  0.534  1.502  Least 
developed countries 3.399 1.386 7.809 3.075 
Source: ISDR (www.unisdr.org) 

Natural disaster management 

397 
Table I. Average number of people killed per million inhabitants in major world aggregates 1994-2003 
Table II. Total amount of economic damages reported in major world aggregates 1994-2003 (2003 US $ million) 
 
DPM 15,3 
398 
(UN/ISDR,  2002).  Disaster  management  is  interchangeably  used  with  a  term  emergency  management.  It  involves 
plans,  structures,  and  arrangements  established  to  engage  the  normal  endeavors  of  governments,  voluntary  and 
private  agencies  in  a  comprehensive  and  coordinated  way  to  respond  to  the  whole  spectrum  of  emergency  needs. 
Such activities are carried out in an urgent manner when there is an onset of disaster occurrence. 
All  activities  are  centered  at  governmental  departments  and  agencies.  In  addition,  it  requires  planning, 
organizing,  resource  mobilizing,  and  completing  stages  (Kelly,  1995),  which  are  similar  to  public  project 
management.  A  project  is  a  temporary  endeavor  undertaken  to  create  a  unique  product  or  service  while  project 
management  is  application  of  knowledge,  skills,  tools,  and  techniques  to  project  activities  to  meet  project 
requirements  (PMBOKw  Guide,  2004,  pp.  4–6).  Therefore,  disaster  management  comprises  of  a  unique  nature  of 
product  and  services  produced,  its  temporary  nature,  and  its  requirement  of  knowledge,  skills  and  tools  reveal that 
the disaster management can be explained from a public project management perspective. 
This  study’s  unique  contribution  to the knowledge body of public project management or disaster management is 
an  integrated  approach  to  managing  disaster  with  a  basic  goal  to  minimize  effectively the impact of the disaster. In 
addition,  basing  on  lessons  learned  from  managing  tsunami  disaster  impacts,  which  were  recently  caused  by  a 
hard-hit  tsunami  in  December  2004;  the  study  identifies  the  problems  associated  with  disaster  management  in 
Thailand. Then, comprehensive recommendations are made for those concerned authorities and organizations. 
The study’s objectives are threefold to: (1) provide a framework for effective natural disaster management from a 
public 
project management perspective; (2) propose an integrated approach for successfully and effectively managing 
disaster crisis; and (3) provide a set of critical success factors (CSFs) for managing disaster related 
public projects. 
This  study  is  organized as follows. The following section reviews a conceptual framework for disaster management. 
It  is  followed  by  case  study  of  recent  tsunami  disaster  in Thailand and identification of specific problems. The next 
section proposes recommendations for those who are involved in policy making and building institutional capacity. 
Conceptual framework for natural disaster management What is project management? A project is a temporary 
endeavor undertaken to create a unique product or services. Temporary means that every project has a definite 
beginning and a definite end. A product or service produced may be unique even if the category to which it belongs 
is large. 
According  to  PMBOKw (2004) project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques 
to project activities to meet project requirements. Project management is accomplished through: 
 
(1) Initiating. To authorize and define the scope of a new phase or project or that 
can result in the continuation of halted project work. (2) Planning. To define the mature the project scope, 
develop the project scope, develop the project management plan, and identify and schedule the project activities that 
occur within the project. (3) Executing and controlling. To complete the work defined in the project management 
plan to accomplish the project’s objectives defined in the project statement. (4) Closing or completing. To formally 
terminate all activities of a project or phase 
and transfer the completed product to others or close a cancelled project. 
The project team manages the work of the projects, and the work typically involves: 
• 
completing demands for scope, time, costs, risks, and quality; 
• 
stakeholders with differing needs and expectations; and 
• 
identified requirements. 
What is disaster management? A disaster is a term describing a whole range of distress situations, both individual 
and communal. These include fires and drowning, earthquake and tornado, epidemics and starvation, heat and cold, 
rats and locusts (Kumar, 2000, p. 72). 
There  are  two  types  of  disasters  –  exogenous  and  endogenous.  The  first  refers  a  process  in  which  biological, 
economic  and  psychosocial  distress  suffered  by  one  section  of  the  community,  while  material  gains  and  social 
satisfactions  accrue  to  another.  The  latter  refers  to  an  event  in  which  a  community  or  a  society  experiences  and 
shares  severe  danger,  injury  and  destruction,  or  disruption  of  the  social  structure  and  essential  function  of  the 
society. 
Disaster management includes generic five phases, namely: (1) prediction; (2) warning; (3) emergency relief; (4) 
rehabilitation; and (5) reconstruction. 
Essential activities include: 
• 
mitigation and preparedness; 
• 
response; and 
• 
recovery are conducted in those phases (Jayaraman et al., 1997). 
These phases can be further elaborated by referring to UN/ISDR (2002). 
(1)  Prediction.  In  this  phase,  mitigation  and  preparedness  activities  are  conducted  in  the  prediction  phase.  This 
includes  structural  measures  undertaken  to  limit  the  adverse  impact  of  natural  hazards,  environmental  degradation 
and technological hazards and non-structural measures taken in advance to ensure 

Natural disaster management 

399 
 
DPM 15,3 
400 
effective response to the impact of hazards, including the issuance of timely and effective early warnings and 
temporary evacuation of people and property from threatened locations. (2) Warning. This phase refers to the 
provision of timely and effective information, through identified institutions, that allows individuals exposed to a 
hazard to take action to avoid or reduce their risk and prepare effective response. (3) Emergency relief. The 
provision of assistance or intervention during or immediately after a disaster to meet the life preservation and basic 
subsistence needs of those people affected. It can be of immediate, short-term, or protracted duration. (4) 
Rehabilitation. This phase includes decisions and actions taken after a disaster with a view to restoring or improving 
the pre-disaster living conditions of the stricken community, while encouraging and facilitating necessary 
adjustments to reduce disaster risk. (5) Reconstruction. This phase includes the essential activities conducted are 
mitigation, preparedness activities in prediction phase; response activities in warning and emergency relief phases; 
and recovery activities in rehabilitation and reconstruction phases. 
• 
Mitigation  activities  include  structural and non-structural measures undertaken to limit the adverse impact of natural 
hazards, environmental degradation and technological hazards. 
• 
Preparedness  include  activities  and  measures taken in advance to ensure effective response to the impact of hazards, 
including  the  issuance  of  timely  and  effective  early  warnings  and  the  temporary  evacuation  of people and properly 
from threatened locations. 
• 
Response  includes  the  provision  of  assistance  or  intervention  during  or  immediately  after a disaster to meet the life 
preservation  and  basic  subsistence  needs  of  those  people  affected.  It  can  be  of  an  immediate,  short-term,  or 
protracted duration. 
• 
Recovery  includes  decisions  and  actions  taken  after a disaster with a view to restoring or improving the pre-disaster 
living  conditions  of  the  stricken  community,  while  encouraging  and  facilitating  necessary  adjustments  to  reduce 
disaster risk. 
Similarities of phases between public project management and disaster management Turner (1993) defines project 
as an endeavor in which human, material and financial resources are organized in a novel way, to undertake a unique 
scope of work, of given specification, within constraints of cost and time, so as to achieve beneficial change defined 
by quantitative and qualitative objectives. The three essential features are: 
(1) It is unique. No project before or after will be exactly the same. (2) It is undertaken using a novel process. No 
project before or after will use exactly 
the same approach. (3) It is transient. It has a beginning and an end. 
 
Natural These features create three pressures: 
disaster (1) subject 
to uncertainty; 
management (2) a need 
for integration; and (3) undertaken subject to urgency. 
Therefore, this study conceptualizes the disaster management as public project management, which intends to 
produce unique products, with a novel process, which 

401 
has  beginning  and  end.  There  are  life  cycle  phases  in  such  public  project  management  or  disaster  management 
process.  A  typical  project  management  life  cycle  consists  of  initiation,  planning,  executing,  and completing phases 
(Maylor,  1999)  (Figure  1).  In  the  typical  project  management  life  cycle,  the  phases  of  initiating  and  planning  may 
include  similar  activities  conducted  in  prediction  phase  in  disaster  related  public  project  management.  Similar  to 
activities  conducted  in  executing  phase  in  the  project  management,  warning,  emergency  relief,  and  rehabilitation 
(short-term)  activities  as  well  as  reconstruction  (long-term)  activities  are  carried  out  in  the  disaster  related  public 
project  management.  Therefore,  a  disaster  related  public  project  management  includes  project  life  cycle  phases  of 
prediction,  which  includes  the  initiation  and  planning  which  are  required  for  the  predication  phase.  After  onset  of 
disaster  occurrence,  executing  involves  warning,  emergency  relief,  rehabilitation,  and  reconstruction.  Completion 
tasks are done when completing and transferring reconstruction outputs to stakeholders or clients. 
What are differences between public and private projects? The projects are normally classified according to sources 
of funds and objectives. Private projects are usually financed by their clients with an objective of profit-oriented. In 
contrast, public project or development projects are aimed at elevating poverty and living conditions of people 
Youker (1999). Table III summarizes differentiating characteristics between public and private projects. 
Project Life Cycle Phases 
Disaster Management Phases Time Activities 
Approach 
Initiation 
Prediction 
e r o f e B 
Mitigation 
Pro-active 
Planning 
Preparedness 
Warning 
Emergency Releif 
g n i r u D 
Response 
Executing 
Rehabilitation (short-term) 
Reconstruction 
Reactive 
r e t f A 
Recovery 
Figure 1. A comparison of project life cycle and disaster 
Completing 
(long-term) 
management 
 
DPM 15,3 
402 
Table III. Comparison of public projects versus private projects 
Dimension Public projects Private projects 
Objectives Economic and social development 
including poverty reduction and not-profit motives 
Various objectives ranging from construction to new product development 
Financing Government funds, or international 
funding agencies 
Company’s own financing or loans 
Management From identification to operations and 
ex-post evaluation in the life cycle 
Effective management though the project life cycle Stakeholders Governments, voluntary and private 
agencies 
Clients and company stakeholders 
Environments Difficult environments with a lack of 
infrastructure, in short supply of resources, different value and cultures, different systems from those of donor countries 
Competitive environment with rival companies taking same initiatives of new products or new infrastructures development 
projects 
Disaster  management can be viewed as public project management. First, the source of funding is mainly come from 
government  and  international  funding  agencies.  Second,  the  main  objective is to not-for-profit oriented with an aim 
of  reconstruction  of  infrastructures  which  are  damaged  during  the  disaster,  and  rehabilitation  of  effected 
communities and natural resources. 
Differences between crisis and disaster management A crisis is a situation faced by an individual, group or 
organization which they are unable to cope with by the use of normal routine procedures and in which stress is 
created by sudden change (Booth, 1993). Kumar (2000) argues that the second phase of disaster events includes the 
emergency and crisis that the community shares the impact and sufferings. Thus, the crisis term may refer to the 
event when crisis arises whereas disaster management covers wider scope of prediction, warning, emergency relief, 
rehabilitation, and reconstruction. 
Approaches to disaster management In our conceptual framework, there are two approaches for disaster 
management, namely: 
(1) pro-active approach; and (2) reactive approach. 
Activities  that  are  planned  and conducted before the disaster impact with an aim to effectively minimize the adverse 
impacts  of the disasters are called proactive approach. In contrast, activities of responses and recovery are conducted 
as reactive approach. 
A case study of Thailand’s tsunami disaster management On 26 December 2004, across Asia, people in coastal areas 
in the Indian Ocean and the Andaman Sea were killed by tidal waves caused by the earthquake. They also swept 
away a huge chunk of the region’s fishing industry and tourism spots that helped put it on the world’s travel map. 
Measured at 8.9 on the Richter scale with its epicentre near 
 
Sumatra  Island,  the  quake  was  the most powerful to occur in four decades. The wave heights were at 5 to 6 meter in 
Phuket  West  Coast  and  11  meter  in  Phang  Nga  at  Kao  Lak.  The  velocity  of  attacks  was  measured  at  40 
kilometer/hour. 
As  tidal  waves  wreak  havoc  after  Sumatra  earthquake  aftershock in Thailand, Phuket, Phang Nga, Krabi, Satual, 
and  Ranong  including  two  islands  namely  Phi  Phi  and  Lanta  were  devastated.  The  giant  waves  triggered  by  an 
earthquake  in  Indonesia  swept  away  lives,  property  and  an  economy  that  took  decades  to  build.  The  Thai 
government  declared  a  state  of  emergency  in  Phuket  and  declared  the  area  off  limits  to  visitors.  Prime  Minister 
Thaksin  Shinawatra  left  by  helicopter  on  the  night  of  26  December  to  inspect  the  damage  and  held  an  emergency 
meeting  with  top  officials  in  Phuket.  Ambassadors  from  21  countries  were  also  scheduled  to  leave for the area last 
night  to  help  with  the  evacuation  of  their  nationals  (The  Nation,  2004).  There  were 5,303 dead, 3,498 missing, and 
8,457  injured  and  economic  damage  accounted  for  0.03  percent  of  total  GDP.  A  total  of  7,053  houses  were 
damaged. 
The  main purpose of this session is to critically analyze the experience of managing disaster; to specify problems; 
and  to  study  lessons  learned  form  tsunami  disaster  management  in  Thailand.  First,  there  were  no  activities 
conducted  for  prediction,  warning  and  emergency  relief  phases  that  are  associated with proactive approach. Mostly 
the  activities  carried  out  through the disaster management in Thailand were only associated with parts of emergency 
relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction. 
This  case  study  reveals  that  there  were  specific  problems  encountered  in each of the phases of project life cycle. 
The  main cause of the problems was obviously found that the country lacked a master plan for disaster management. 
It  was  coupled  with  not  specified  responsible  unit  for  handling  disaster  management  in  the  national  level.  The 
following common problems are found in the disaster management in Thailand. 
• 
lack of a master plan for disaster management in Thailand; 
• 
lack of activities for proactive approach including prediction and warning for disaster occurrences; 
• 
no specific responsible unit; 
• 
slow decision making in national level for emergency relief activities; 
• 
unclear line of command from top to provincial level authorities; 
• 
logistic problems for distributing goods for emergency relief; 
• 
lack of effective collaboration among institutions in different levels; 
• 
lack of encouragement for participation of local and international NGOs; 
• 
lack of education and knowledge for tsunami in potential disaster effected communities; and 
• 
lack of information management or database system. 
From  the  experience  of  tsunami  disaster  management,  it  is  found  that  the  lack  of  proactive  approach  had  caused 
more damage and dead. The main lesson learned was to encourage more activities for proactive approach. There was 
a  lead-time  of  2  hours  that  should  be  sufficient  to  evacuate  people  in  the  risk  prone  communities  to  mitigate  the 
tsunami.  As  a  result  of  lack  of  risk  identification  system  and  warning,  it  had  caused  more  people  dead.  After  the 
disaster  or  post-disaster  management  process,  unclear  line  of  authorities,  and  unspecific  responsible  authority 
coupled with slow decision process 

Natural disaster management 

403 
 
DPM 15,3 
404 
had caused delay in carrying out activities (see summaries of problems and lessons learned in disaster management 
in Table IV). 
An integrated approach to disaster management What is an integrated approach? This study proposes an integrated 
approach that could be adopted to disaster management in Thailand (Figure 2). The integrated approach includes 
both proactive and reactive strategies. The proactive approach requires identification of risk. Grounding on the risk 
identified, the activities of: 
• 
mitigation; 
• 
preparedness; and 
• 
partial response in the phases of prediction and warning. 
Since, these activities are mainly based on identified risk and thus prediction and estimation of the risk is necessary 
and critical. 
The  reactive  approach  includes  assessing impacts and its level. Depending on the level of impacts from disasters, 
response  and  recovery  activities  can  be  carried  out  for  warning, emergency relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction 
phases  in  the  disaster  management.  Thus,  the  impact  assessment  is  crucial  for  successful  implementation  of  the 
disaster related public project management. 
What are activities included in the approach? Risk identification and assessment is the most critical task in managing 
disasters (Uitto, 1998). Its continuous assessment, accuracy, quality of information are important inputs for 
effectively minimize negative impact of disasters. The process of conducting a risk assessment is based on a review 
of both the technical features of hazards such as their location, intensity, frequency and probability; and also the 
analysis of the physical, social, economic and environmental dimensions of vulnerability and exposure, while taking 
particular account of the coping capabilities pertinent to the risk scenarios. Vulnerability measures the conditions 
determined by physical, social, economic, and environmental factors or processes, which increase the susceptibility 
of a community to the impact of hazards (UN/ISDR, 2002). Risk identification and assessment is normally 
conducted by the key actors of in national, provincial, district, sub-district, and village levels. The principal key 
stakeholder of the disaster management is the governmental unit, namely Department of Mitigation and 
Preparedness Center (DMPC). The assessment of impact levels is critical because it can be used for rehabilitation 
and reconstruction. The main purposes are to identify damage level of disasters effected areas and locations in terms 
of social, economic, and environmental assessments, to prioritize effected communities for rehabilitation and 
reconstruction, and to design and plan for implementation of reconstruction process. Levels of impacts can be 
classified into high, medium, and low. Responsible governmental unit can be in a hierarchal order in: 
• 
national; 
• 
provincial; and 
• 
district, sub-district, and village for high, medium, and low levels of disaster effected areas, respectively. 
 
Natural disaster management 
405 
Table IV. Problems and lessons learned from managing recent natural disaster in Thailand 
 
DPM 15,3 
406 
Table IV. 
 
Natural disaster management 
407 
Table IV. 
 
Figure 2. Level of crisis impacts and key actors 

DPM 15,3 
408 
What are gains from the integrated approach? Managing disasters with the integrated approach can receive valuable 
gains. First, the proactive approach allows mitigation, preparedness, and warning for disasters before they take 
place. Natural hazards are normally classified by their onset time. Some are slow-onset and provide lead-time for 
mitigative action. Slow-onset hazards include droughts, floods and volcanic eruptions. Other events, such as flash 
floods, tsunamis and cyclones, provide little or no lead-time for mitigation and preparedness measures or appropriate 
warnings. Sufficient lead-time increases the potential for saving lives, livestock, property and livelihoods of a 
population at risk. These potentials can be realized as gains when proactive approach is adopted (Table V). 
What are critical success factors for successful disaster management? This disaster management can be conceived as 
a public project management in which the government is the key stakeholder. There are many challenges ahead of 
the adoption of the integrated approach in the project management. To complete project successfully, some CSFs 
must be taken into consideration thorough the project life cycle phases. The project success factors are the 
circumstances, facts, or influences that are inputs into management systems and can directly or indirectly affect the 
outcomes of a project (Lim and Mohamed, 1999; Cooke-Davies, 2002). There are ten CSFs that must be carefully 
taken into considerations in managing disasters. They are as follows: (1) Effective institutional arrangement. The 
effective institutional arrangement is necessary for adopting the integrated approach. And lack of responsible 
governmental unit will lead to unclear line of authority and delay in decision-making process especially for 
emergency relief and rehabilitation. The principal responsible government department must be specified and the 
specific responsible unit must be fully authorized for disaster management in a national level. (2) Coordination and 
collaboration. The effective coordination and collaboration is also critical in successfully managing disasters. There 
are five different levels of coordination and collaboration among key stakeholders, namely international, 
Disaster Project Life Cycle 
Phases 
Management Phases 
Time Activities 
Mitigation 
R 
Legend Actors 
Initiation 
Prediction 
e r o f e B 
n o i t a c i f 
National DMPC Provincial DMPC 
Planning 
Preparedness 
i t n e 
District DMPC Sub-District DMPC 
h c a o r p p A e 
Village DMPC 
P Response D 
H Executing 
Provincial DMPC 
Recovery 
District DMPC Sub-District DMPC 
R 
Village DMPC 
Note: DMPC= Department of Mitigation and Prevention Committee 
d I k s i Warning 
v i t c a o r 
Emergency Releif 
Rehabilitation (short-term) 
Reconstruction (long-term) 
g n i r u 
l e v e L 
A 
h g i 
National DMPC 
& t n e m 
M 
h 
I 
c a m u i d 
o r 
L 
p p A r e t f 
s s e s s 
e 
A t c a 
w 
e v i t c a e 
Completing 
p m 
o 
 
Lead-time Value of lead-time 
Slow-onset natural hazards Drought 3-6 months Crops/agriculture/water management, food security Revering flood 3-5 days 
Saving lives by evacuation of people and livestock to 
safe havens Volcanic eruption 48 hours Saving lives by evacuation of people and livestock to 
safe havens Quick-onset natural hazards Flash-flood 6-18 hours Saving lives by 
evacuation of people and livestock to 
safe havens Tsunami (local) 5 mins Saving lives by evacuation of people and livestock to 
high ground Tsunami (distant) 3 hours Saving lives by evacuation of people and livestock to 
high ground Storm/cyclone 48 hours Saving lives by evacuation of people and livestock to 
safe havens Landslide 1-2 hours Saving lives by evacuation of people and livestock to 
safe havens Tornado 1-12 hours Saving lives by evacuation of people and livestock to 
safe havens 
Source: APDC (2005) 
national, regional, organizational, and project level. Lack of coordination among different level of organizations, 
including governmental agencies, NGOs, International NGOs, donors was found as common problem 
(Charoenngam and Leungbootnak, 2005). (3) Supportive laws and regulations. The supportive laws and regulations 
will have positive impact on outcomes of disaster management. There were 34 laws that are related to disasters in 
Thailand. With such different laws for set for different organizations, and without enforcing them, organizations 
face role and line of authority confusions (Tingsanchali, 2005). Therefore, supportive laws and regulations must be 
established and they must be enforced so that it will create enabling environment for managing disasters. (4) 
Effective information management system. Another common problem associated with the management of disasters 
is lack of essential information among key stakeholders (Charoenngam and Leungbootnak, 2005). This information 
is vital for planning, early warning, and rehabilitation and reconstruction. Therefore, effective information 
management system and sharing vital information among key stakeholders are necessary for successful outcomes of 
the disaster management. (5) Competencies of managers and team members. Disaster preparedness will not be 
effective without the participation of the vulnerable community or target beneficiaries (Newport and Jawahar, 2003, 
p. 33). The disaster management plan managing disasters is usually done by individual project managers and project 
team members. Their administrative, conceptual, and technical skills are important for planning, implementing, and 
managing disaster projects 

Natural disaster management 

409 
Table V. Lead-time and their values for disaster management 
 
DPM 15,3 
410 
successfully. They can be provided with effective development training to increase competencies or organizations 
can select people with high competence. (6) Effective consultation with key stakeholders and target beneficiaries. 
Participation of the clients or target beneficiaries is critical for ensuring successful outcomes. Effective consultation 
of the project planners with, and among, the key project stakeholders, namely donors, local authorities, 
implementing agency, target beneficiaries in order to formulate an acceptable project strategy and action plan. (7) 
Effective communication mechanism. Project success is strongly linked to communication and co-operation between 
stakeholders. Trust resulting from effective communication between the task managers and the coordinator is the 
key success factor whereas team cohesion is the second most important factor for project success. In other words, 
such effective communication is described as a collaborative working relationship. It should be maintained between 
the project owner and project manager, with both viewing the project as a partnership (Turner and Muller, 2004). 
Thus, effective communication mechanisms must be established among key stakeholders. (8) Clearly defined goals 
and commitments by key stakeholders. It is common in international development project that project team 
management and stakeholders lack commitment (Youker, 1999; Daillo and Thuillier, 2004). A project having clear 
and exact goal(s) with clearly stated purpose which is accepted by all involved in the efforts, and with having their 
views are integrated and a clear final date of completion is strongly and significantly relate to project success, find 
that clear goal and objectives are the most important CSF in their study which captured the “real world” experiences 
of people active in project management. Thus, project goals must be clearly defined. And key stakeholders must 
share agreement and commit to them. (9) Effective logistics management. Effective logistics management is 
necessary before, during, and after the disasters. Most transportation problems stem from transportation bottlenecks, 
lack of coordination for relief works, and poor national transport infrastructures (port, road, rail, and air). Disaster 
logistics include people, expertise, and technology. Employing a new technology such as geographic information 
system and remote sensing tools can enhance capacity to coordinate among organizations for more effective 
logistics management. (10) Sufficient mobilization and disbursement of resources. A resource planning determines 
what resources (people, equipment, and materials) are needed in what quantities to perform project activities 
(PMBOKw Guide, 2004). One of the most commonly found problems associate with projects is ”shortage of 
resources”. Lack of adequate resources and poor or no analysis of major risk factors can lead to a number of 
problems resulting in termination and suspension of the project (Youker, 1999; Diallo and Thuillier, 2004). 
“Adequate funds/resources” is found as one of the most CSFs in practice. 
Conclusions This study has proposed an integrated approach for disaster management. The integrated approach 
includes both proactive and reactive strategies aimed for disaster management before, during and after periods. 
Disaster management can be conceived as public project 
 
management.  Similar  project  life  cycle  phases  are  compared  between  the  disaster  management  and  project 
management.  It  is  common  that  many  developing  countries,  which  are  mostly  prone  to  disaster  lack  proactive 
strategies  for  early  warning,  mitigation  and  preparedness.  When  disaster  occurs,  without  the  proactive  approach, 
severe  damages  and  devastation  resulted  in.  The  last  tsunami,  which  caused  many  people  dead  and  lost  of  natural 
and  personal  property, has always reminded people of their careless mistakes for disaster risk management. With the 
integrated  approach,  lives  of  many  people  can  be  saved.  This  study  analyzes  and  specifies  the  problems  and 
discusses  the  lessons  learned  from  the  recent  case  study  of  tsunami  in  the  country.  To  successfully  adopt  the 
integrated  approach,  the  set  of  CSFs  identified  should  be  carefully  considered  for  effective  disaster  management. 
Above all, the principal stakeholder of the disaster management is the government. Thus, motive and commitment of 
those  political  leaders  and  their  willingness  to  adopt  the proposed integrated approach is critical for saving people’s 
lives, natural resources, and personal property and promoting sustainability for disasters prone areas in the country. 
References Booth, S.A. (1993), Crisis Management Strategy – Competition and Change in Modern 
Enterprises, Routledge, London. Charoenngam, C. and Leungbootnak, N. (2005), “Post-tsunami disaster reconstruction 
management: 
a case study of Thailand”, working paper, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok. Cooke-Davies, T. (2002), “The ‘real’ success 
factors on projects”, International Journal of Project 
Management, Vol. 20, pp. 185-90. Diallo, A. and Thuillier, D. (2004), “The success dimensions of international 
development projects: the perceptions of African project coordinators”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, pp. 
19-31. Jayaraman, V., Chandrasekhar, M.G. and Rao, U.R. (1997), “Managing the natural disasters from 
space technology inputs”, Acta Astronautica, Vol. 40 Nos 2/8, pp. 291-325. Kelly, C. (1995), “A framework for improving 
operational effectiveness and cost efficiency in emergency planning and response”, Disaster Prevention and Management., Vol. 4 
No. 3, pp. 25-35. Kumar, G.S.J. (2000), “Disaster management and social development”, International Journal of 
Sociology & Social Policy, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 66-81. Lim, C.S. and Mohamed, M.Z. (1999), “Criteria of project success”, 
International Journal of Project 
Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 243-8. Maylor, H. (1999), Project Management, Financial Times Management, London. 
Newport, J.K. and Jawahar, G.G.P. (2003), “Community participation and public awareness in disaster mitigation”, Disaster 
Prevention and Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 33-6. Pongquan, S. (2005), “Natural resources and community based 
rehabilitation”, paper presented at Seminar on the Presentation of Findings by AIT Team of Experts on Tsunami Affected Areas 
in the South of Thailand, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, 19 January, available at: 
http://tsunami.ait.ac.th/TsunamiAreas.html Project Management Boday of Knowledge Guide Book (2004), Project Management 
Institute, 
Newtown Square, PA. The Nation(2004), English daily newspaper in Thailand. 27 December, www.nationmultimedia.com 
Tingsanchali, T. (2005), “Tsunami attacks and disaster management”, paper presented at Seminar on the Presentation of Findings 
by AIT Team of Experts on Tsunami Affected 

Natural disaster management 

411 
 
DPM 15,3 
412 
Areas in the South of Thailand, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, 19 January, available at: 
http://tsunami.ait.ac.th/TsunamiAreas.html Turner, J.R. and Muller, R. (2004), “Communication and co-operation on projects 
between the project owner as principal and the project manager as agent”, European Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 
327-36. Turner, J.R. (1993), The Handbook of Project Based Management, McGraw-Hill, London. Uitto, J.I. (1998), “The 
geography of disaster vulnerability in megacities: a theoretical 
framework”, Applied Geography, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 7-16. UN/ISDR (2002), “Living with risk: a global review of disaster 
reduction initiatives”, Preliminary 
version prepared as an interagency effort coordinated by the ISDR Secretariat, Geneva. Youker, R. (1999), “Managing 
international development projects: lessons learned”, Project 
Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 6-7. 
Further reading Abbasi, G.Y. and Al-Mharmah, H.A. (2000), “Project management practice by the public sector in 
a developing Country”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 18, pp. 105-9. Christine, M. et al., (1993), 
“From crisis prone to crisis prepared: a framework for crisis 
management”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 48-59. Klein, R.J.T. et al., (2003), “Resilience to natural 
hazards: how useful is this concept?”, 
Environmental Hazards, Vol. 5, pp. 35-45. Kwak, Y.H. (2002), “Critical success factors in international development 
project management”, Conference Proceedings of CIB 10th International Symposium Construction Innovation & Global 
Competitiveness, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 9-13, pp. 1-7. Loosemore, M. (1998), “The three ironies of crisis management in 
construction projects”, 
International Journal of Project Management., Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 139-44. May, P.J. (1982), “Formulating disaster relief when 
needs are unknown”, Journal of Policy 
Analysis and Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 39-54. Mitchell, J.K. (1999), “Megacities and natural disasters: a comparative 
analysis”, Geo Journal, 
Vol. 49, pp. 137-42. Paton, D. (2003), “Disaster preparedness: a social-cognitive perspective”, Disaster Prevention and 
Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 210-6. Paudel, P.P. et al., (2003), “Landside damage and disaster management system in 
Nepal”, Vol. 12 
No. 5, pp. 413-9. Tingsanchali, T. (n.d.), “Improvement of water-related disaster management in Thailand”, 
working paper, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok. Zhang, J. et al., (2003), “Flood disaster monitoring and evaluation 
in China”, Environmental 
Hazards., Vol. 4, pp. 33-43. 
About the authors 
Tun  Lin  Moe  is  a  Faculty  Member  of  School of Management, Shinawatra University, Thailand. He was a postdoctoral fellow of 
Asian  Institute  of Technology at the School of Management. Holding an MA in Business Management from the University of the 
Thai  Chamber  of  Commerce  (UTCC),  Bangkok,  Thailand  and  a  PhD  in Development Administration majoring in Development 
Management  from  National  Institute  of  Development  Administration  (NIDA),  Bangkok,  Thailand,  he  is  currently  teaching 
graduate courses in management at Shinawatra 
 
Natural University. His research interests cover subject areas in the development management such as international development 
projects management, public private partnership project management, disaster project management and managerial networking. 
Tun Lin Moe is the 
disaster management corresponding author and can be contacted at: tunlinmoe@shinawatra.ac.th 
Pairote  Pathranarakul  is  Associate  Dean  for  Planning  and  Development  Affairs  at  the  School  of  Public  Administration, 
National  Institute  of  Development  Administration  (NIDA),  Bangkok,  Thailand.  Holding  an  MPA  (Hons)  in  Public  Policy  and 
Project  Management,  School  of  Public  Administration,  NIDA  and  a  PhD  in  Regional  and  Rural  Development  Planning,  Asian 
Institute 
413 of 
Technology, he currently teaches graduate courses in management and project management courses at NIDA. 
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: 
www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints 
 
This article has been cited by: 
1. Marini Othman, Mohammad Nazir Ahmad, Azizah Suliman, Noor Habibah Arshad, Siti Sarah Maidin. 2014. 
COBIT principles to govern flood management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 9, 212-223. 
[CrossRef] 2. Idris Aida, Nizam Che Soh Saiful. 2014. Determinants of HADR mission success: exploring the 
experience of the Malaysian army. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 23:4, 455-468. 
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 3. Mohammad H. Mojtahedi S., Lan Oo Bee. 2014. Stakeholders’ approaches to 
disaster risk reduction in built environment. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 23:4, 
356-369. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 4. Siti Hajar Othman, Ghassan Beydoun, Vijayan Sugumaran. 2014. 
Development and validation of a Disaster Management Metamodel (DMM). Information Processing & Management 
50:2, 235-271. [CrossRef] 5. Bingunath Ingirige (1) and Keith Jones (2) Dr, Crawford Lynn, Langston Craig, 
Bajracharya Bhishna. 2013. Participatory project management for improved disaster resilience. International Journal 
of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 4:3, 317-333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 6. Doocy Shannon, 
Russell Evan, Gorokhovich Yuri, Kirsch Thomas. 2013. Disaster preparedness and humanitarian response in flood 
and landslide-affected communities in Eastern Uganda. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International 
Journal 22:4, 326-339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 7. Taufika Ophiyandri, Dilanthi Amaratunga, Chaminda 
Pathirage, Kaushal Keraminiyage. 2013. Critical success factors for community-based post-disaster housing 
reconstruction projects in the pre-construction stage in Indonesia. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the 
Built Environment 4:2, 236-249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 8. Jaime Santos-Reyes, Alan N. Beard. 2013. 
Information Communication Technology and a Systemic Disaster Management System Model. International Journal 
of Distributed Systems and Technologies 2:1, 29-42. [CrossRef] 9. John Lindström, Dan Harnesk, Elina Laaksonen, 
Marko Niemimaa. 2012. A Methodology for Inter- Organizational Emergency Management Continuity Planning. 
International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management 2:4, 1-19. [CrossRef] 10. Sander 
Leeuw, Iris F. A. Vis, Sebastiaan N. Jonkman. 2012. Exploring Logistics Aspects of Flood 
Emergency Measures. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 20:3, 166-179. [CrossRef] 11. Bevaola 
Kusumasari, Quamrul Alam. 2012. Local wisdom-based disaster recovery model in Indonesia. Disaster Prevention 
and Management: An International Journal 21:3, 351-369. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 12. Pauliina Palttala, 
Camillo Boano, Ragnhild Lund, Marita Vos. 2012. Communication Gaps in Disaster Management: Perceptions by 
Experts from Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis 
Management 20:1, 2-12. [CrossRef] 13. Pauliina Palttala, Marita Vos. 2012. Quality Indicators for Crisis 
Communication to Support Emergency Management by Public Authorities. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis 
Management 20:1, 39-51. [CrossRef] 14. Bevaola Kusumasari, Quamrul Alam. 2012. Bridging the gaps: the role of 
local government capability and 
the management of a natural disaster in Bantul, Indonesia. Natural Hazards 60:2, 761-779. [CrossRef] 
 
15. Gayani KarunasenaSustainable Post-Disaster Waste Management: Construction and Demolition Debris 
251-267. [CrossRef] 16. Krisanthi SeneviratneCapacity of the Construction Industry for Post-Disaster 
Reconstruction: Post- 
Tsunami Sri Lanka 30-50. [CrossRef] 17. Pablo Maya Duque, Kenneth Sörensen. 2011. A GRASP metaheuristic 
to improve accessibility after a 
disaster. OR Spectrum 33:3, 525-542. [CrossRef] 18. Krisanthi Seneviratne, David Baldry, Chaminda Pathirage. 
2010. Disaster knowledge factors in managing 
disasters successfully. International Journal of Strategic Property Management 14:4, 376-390. [CrossRef] 19. 
Bevaola Kusumasari, Quamrul Alam, Kamal Siddiqui. 2010. Resource capability for local government in managing 
disaster. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 19:4, 438-451. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 
20. Victoria Hardy, Kathy O. Roper, Suzanne Kennedy. 2009. Emergency preparedness and disaster recovery 
in the US post 9/11. Journal of Facilities Management 7:3, 212-223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 21. Courtney M. 
Page. 2009. International Actors Leading in Relief Efforts: 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami Aid 
Assessment. Asian Politics & Policy 1:3, 435-462. [CrossRef] 22. Vinnie Jauhari, Richa Malhotra, Umashankar 
Venkatesh. 2009. Pre-crisis period planning: lessons for hospitality and tourism. Worldwide Hospitality and 
Tourism Themes 1:1, 66-74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 23. M.E. Baris. 2009. Effectiveness of Turkish Disaster 
Management System and Recommendations. 
Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment 23, 1391-1398. [CrossRef] 24. Benoit Robert, Renaud De Calan, 
Luciano Morabito. 2008. Modelling interdependencies among critical 
infrastructures. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures 4:4, 392. [CrossRef] 25. Tun Lin Moe, Fritz 
Gehbauer, Stefan Senitz, Marc Mueller. 2007. Balanced scorecard for natural disaster management projects. 
Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 16:5, 785-806. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 26. 
Marcia Perry. 2007. Natural disaster management planning. International Journal of Physical Distribution 
& Logistics Management 37:5, 409-433. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 27. Jaime Santos-Reyes, Alan N. 
BeardInformation Communication Technology and a Systemic Disaster 
Management System Model 294-308. [CrossRef] 28. John Lindström, Dan Harnesk, Elina Laaksonen, Marko 
NiemimaaA Methodology for Inter- 
Organizational Emergency Management Continuity Planning 197-215. [CrossRef]