The personal variables inclusive of Gender, Age and Education level of the SME’s decision making tend to provide for innovative analysis of the flood scenario. Gender of decision makers has been considered to be important factor as female and minority decision makers tend to end up with longer DRTP (Marshall 2015). Although Gender variable in our models is not significant, this meaning that there is not significant difference between management men and women of SME, also is true that among the respondents, during the Key informant interview, one of the respondents from the provincial government disaster mitigation office adds,
Women in Thailand are very hardworking and responsible. This tends to increase their trauma and responsibilities towards the SME, their household as well their employee’s wellbeing. It is unfortunate that even after giving their best, the women find it difficult to reduce the flood recovery time period within their SME as well as among neighbouring SMEs.
Similarly, the variable age plays a vital role in coping up with a disaster event and tend to reflect upon the DRTP of SMEs among Thailand. Asgary et. al. (Asgary, Anjum and Azimi 2012, Asgary, Ozdemir and Özyürek 2020) presented age as an important factor determining the duration of DRTP after the devastating floods in 2010 in Pakistan. The respondent from the Ministry of Social Development emphasized that age contributes to the risk perception and acceptability to invest in disaster mitigation measures to reduce flood risks. He adds,
I must make a statement that in Thailand the veterans are reluctant to invest in flood mitigation initiatives. They have seen floods before but they do not analyse or understand the magnitude of the floods and its long term implications. The younger generations tend to learn from neighbouring SMEs and try to adopt the mitigation during and after floods.
Among the significant personal variables, education tends to be crucial for reducing the DRTP and coping up with the disaster events. Previous studies also emphasized upon positive relation between education level and DRTP (Sydnor, et al. 2017), however, our findings confirm the significance of education among neighbouring SMEs as well. A respondent from the district level commerce department adds,
The SME managers/owners are very receptive towards the flood mitigation measures. They understand the implications of facing the floods in all socio-economic terms. The college degree really enables them to understand, analyse and reduce the disaster impact time period (DRTP).
The Thai SMEs are a crucial part of various local, national and international supply chain management systems. 2011 floods impacts were felt all through these supply chains and repercussions were felt in almost every part of the world. For instance, the hike in the prices of hard disks in USA due to the impacts upon the SMEs contributing towards the Western Digital company to manufacture hard disk. One of the respondents among the leading instant noodle company in Thailand who suffered losses in his supply chain both in terms of the raw materials supply and end product delivery to various parts of the word. He adds
Our supply chain management completed failed without the disaster recovery planning. Our suppliers did not deliver raw materials in time and we were inundated for a period of 55 days so could not deliver our noodle orders. Now we think of investing in flood preparedness or prevention measures for future.
The explanatory variables were also found to be significant, this is in line with several previous literatures (Asgary, Anjum and Azimi, Disaster recovery and business continuity after the 2010 flood in Pakistan: case of small businesses 2012, Fan and Jingke 2019). Among them, Mitigation from floods have been one of the most crucial in terms of ascertaining the speed or duration of the DRTP among vulnerable SMEs. Among the respondents, there was a lack of adopted mitigation measures before the 2011 floods. This was found to be in line with the various other factors involving the perceived risk and decisions taken by the neighbouring SMEs. It was found that flood mitigation measures (structural) were in line with the neighbouring SMEs. Therefore, it resulted in accumulation of several dykes leading to increased flood water levels in the already flood inundated areas. The decisions made by neighbouring SMEs resulted in higher impacts on them as a whole. One of the SME owner adds,
Everyone was protected themselves with dykes, SME with sand bags and Large enterprises with concrete dykes but lack of cooperation among us led to several dykes wasted, rather increased the flood (Levels).
Such mitigation measures were observed throughout the central region of Thailand making it difficult for the flood mitigation at the government level. It led to unprepared SMEs being exposed to higher flood water levels and magnitude of the floods. Despite the individual efforts the flood mitigation resulted in a failure without adequate cooperation between the SMEs and the government channels.
On the other hand, non-structural measures were scarcely adopted among the flood vulnerable SMEs in the study area. It was observed that non-structural measures such as insurance, which would have reduced the monetary losses and mental trauma and stress among the flood affected SMEs, was not adopted by most of the vulnerable SMEs. The reason for lack of adoption of Insurance as a flood mitigation measure and reducing the DRTP among the vulnerable SMEs was higher rate of insurance premium and lack of trust and collaboration between the SMEs and the insurance companies. One of the respondents from flood affected SME added,
Insurance prior to 2011 floods was an expensive and not so urgent expense for all of us. The premium is high; we have no clue if we would be flooded or be paid in time after the floods. Insurance companies never come to us for flood insurance they only come life insurance in terms of individuals or group employees.
Similarly, the leading insurance company in the study area was not surprised on non-adoption of Insurance as a mitigation strategy from flood events. She added,
We never discussed flood insurance whenever we reach out to them for insurance. They are never interested as we understand the high premium rates and no compulsion from government organizations.
Therefore, Insurance need to be a compulsory measure to be implemented through government channels towards the vulnerable SMEs. However, to be supportive towards those SMEs, the government may provide subsidies in order to generate a motivation towards adopting insurance as a non- structural flood mitigation measure.
The financial security brings about the less stressful situation for the flood affected SMEs, which in turn enhances their capacities to recover faster from disaster scenarios. 2011 floods were an eye-opener for the SMEs as they understood the requirement of the fast and adequate financial assistance both from government as well as the financial institutions. However, it was found to be really difficult for around 85% of the companies to procure adequate finances for faster recovery from the 2011 floods. This was in line with the findings from various SME promotion and financial institution’s schemes to assist the SMEs, as lack of awareness deprived the affected SMEs from availing the loans or financial assistance. One of the banking official adds,
“No matter how many schemes we have to assist the flood affected SMEs, without adequate communication and sharing the information they will not be able to fully utilize the financial loan and security features including the promotion of entrepreneur.”
Another major factor was the misperception of risk among the vulnerable SMEs. It was almost negligible possibility for the SMEs to be flooded at such high magnitude. Therefore, this unawareness and misinterpretation of risk perception led to escalating losses and damages during the post 2011 floods. With absence of awareness of actual risk, the perceived risk was lower and resulted in long term impacts of 2011 floods. One of the respondents from the SME residing among vulnerable areas adds,
It is essential to know that we are at risk. Why else will we be spending on disaster preparedness, mitigation or recovery? It takes ample resources including physical and financial to be dealt with these uncertain events. However, our perception has changed after the experience of 2011 floods. It is easier to be prepared than managing post flood losses.
The findings shed light upon the mismanagement of the 2011 floods by the then government and several previous research provide the evidence of the same (Pathak and Ahmad 2016, Pathak and Ahmad, Flood risk reduction through insurance for SMEs in Pathumthani province, Thailand 2018, World Bank 2012). The response from the government towards the unforeseen factors contributing towards the magnitude of the 2011 floods let to the escalating losses. It was observed that neighbouring SMEs found it difficult to collaborate with the local level government relief and recovery departments as there is a strict top to bottom approach of governance in Thailand (Pathak and Ahmad 2018). There were sufficient resources with several departments at the local level, however without the prior approval from higher authorities the local department were not able to provide immediate and prompt relief and recovery assistance towards the SMEs. The major impact was borne by the SMEs in the remote location of the Pathumthani province which are scattered throughout the province. In words of respondent from the local fire station service, he adds,
There were motorised boats and big fire trucks available with us and we received the call for assistance from the nearby SMEs. However, we are not allowed to assist without the prior approval from the provincial authorities as we were kept on standby for more than 3 days.
Such attitudes led to unused resources at the local level. Similarly, the officer from the postal department in the rural area, she said,
I was shocked at the amount of trucks and mini-vans which we kept in our facilities. With proper planning we could assisted the companies in the nearby areas. At least to move their movable assets to higher grounds or at least to the less flood (vulnerable) locations.
Likewise, in the terms of the preparedness of the government, the government was not prepared for the floods, in terms of managing flood waters, utilizing resources, coordinating among various government bodies and departments, providing timely early flood warning to the local SMEs, deal with the uneven flood water heights, security issues including inundation of crocodile farm and most of crocodiles being freed into the flood waters, danger from the contaminated flood water borne diseases and animal attacks also including monitor lizards, dogs, snakes as well.
One the provincial disaster management official admits that there was mismanagement at the part of the government at the national level. As the disaster management framework is already existing in Thailand before 2011 floods the overall impacts could be reduced with adequate preparedness at the government level. He adds,
I, Myself being at the decision making position, was unable to deliver the best of my ability. There was tremendous pressure from high authorities and ample demands from the subordinate levels. I wanted and could have assisted better if at least the provincial level had some urgent decision making authority. All this increase the stress and reduces are capacities and capabilities to deal with the floods.
The neighbouring SMEs were abandoned and left to manage their enterprises on their own. However, this changed with government relief measures after the floods with assisting in terms of financial aid provided by the government agencies. This included coverage of 75% of the wages to be paid to the registered employees of the SMEs. Though the non-registered employees struggled to survive the aftermath of 2011 floods.
One of the major planning component, Business continuity Planning (BCP) was found to be missing with most of these 2011 flood affected SMEs. This is in line with the fact that as one SME adopts the BCP and the neighbouring SMEs themselves try to collaborate and plan the similar BCPs for their enterprises. This found in one the flood vulnerable region in the study area. However, such planning should be mandatory with the compulsion of the government as well among the SMEs.
In order to adopt the structural, non-structural flood mitigation measures and planning for business continuity during and after disasters, should be a responsibility of the SMEs. Although, the external aid and assistance was found to be negligible during the 2011 floods, SMEs could have adopted some of the measures before the 2011 floods to be prepared for the floods. This is in line with the fact that unawareness and inaccurate risk perception among the vulnerable SMEs led to enormous losses. Similarly, the government schemes such as providing benefits and assistance to provide for staff’s 75% of salary was not provided to all SMEs. One of the respondent from SME added, she said,
I am over fifty years of age, it was already too tiresome for me to manage personal and SME. The government did not help in any way. The schemes they had were not informed to me. I came to know through my neighbouring companies. They can at least share to each group of SMEs (Cluster). It was very hard for me continue after 2011 floods.
These findings and observation provide for the importance of utilizing the spatially interdependent SMEs in the flood affected region. Through the adequate disaster recovery planning and improving the governance mechanisms to provide the relief and recovery assistance towards the vulnerable SMEs, the DRTP could be reduced for the future events.