Public and Interagency Communication During the November 2025 Hat Yai Flooding Disaster: A Critical Analysis
Abstract
The November 2025 flood in Hat Yai, Thailand, is one of the most severe climate-related emergencies in the region’s recent history, affecting over 3 million people across southern provinces; it was a severe urban disaster that disrupted transport, healthcare, power, and telecommunications across Southern Thailand. This critical case analysis examines both public-facing and interagency communication using the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) model and the Protective Action Decision Model (PADM). Evidence was drawn from government reports, contemporaneous media coverage, and institutional response documentation. The case was distinctive because two successive rainfall episodes affected a major commercial and healthcare hub, digital communication failed during the critical response period, multiple command structures operated in parallel, and informal volunteer networks became central to rescue and relief. Warning information was available, but inconsistent risk interpretation and insufficiently actionable messages impeded protective action. During the acute phase, fragmented authority contributed to duplicated relief in some locations and inadequate coverage in others, whereas radio networks, community groups, and a centralized hospital War Room sustained essential coordination. The analysis supports a stage-specific communication system that links a unified interagency command, redundant communication infrastructure, verified community reporting, and explicit action guidance. These findings extend crisis communication analysis beyond message dissemination by showing that communication governance, which dictates who validates, prioritizes, and coordinates information, is itself a core disaster-response capability.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
U.S. Embassy Bangkok. “Weather alert: severe flooding in Hat Yai district, Songkhla, Thailand,” November 24, 2025. [homepage on the Internet]. Bangkok: U.S. Embassy Bangkok; 2025 [cited 2026 May 14]. Available: https://th.usembassy.gov/weather-alert-severe-flooding-in-hat-yai-district-songkhlathailand/
Maverick Consulting Group. “Southern Thailand floods 2025: a disaster that raises bigger questions than water level,” November 27, 2025. [homepage on the Internet]. Bangkok: Maverick Consulting Group; 2025 [cited 2026 May 14]. Available: https://www.mcg-asia.com/featured-insights/southern-thailand-floods-2025
The Nation Thailand, “Hat Yai health system in crisis as only one hospital remains for 700,000 people,” November 28, 2025. [homepage on the Internet]. Bangkok: The Nation; 2025 [cited 2026 May 14]. Available: https://www.nationthailand.com/news/general/40058920
Reynolds B, Seeger MW. Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. J Health Commun 2005;10:43-55. doi: 10.1080/10810730590904571.
Lindell MK, Perry RW. The protective action decision model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Anal 2012;32:616-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x.
Public Relations Department of Thailand, “The emergency flood crisis operations center continues relief efforts in Southern Thailand,” November 27, 2025. [homepage on the Internet]. Bangkok: The Government Public Relations Department; 2025 [cited 2026 May 14]. Available: https://www.thailand.go.th/news/emergency-flood-crisis-operations-center
Kellens W, Terpstra T, De Maeyer P. Perception and communication of flood risks: a systematic review of empirical research. Risk Anal 2013;33:24-49. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01844.x.
Kittipongvises S, Mino T. Perception and communication of flood risk: lessons learned about Thailand’s flood crisis of 2011. Appl Environ Res 2015;37:57-70. doi: 10.35762/AER.2015.37.1.6.
Feldman D, Contreras S, Karlin B, Basolo V, Matthew R, Sanders B, et al. Communicating flood risk: looking back and forward at traditional and social media outlets. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2016;15:43-51. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.12.004.
Lovari A, Bowen SA. Social media in disaster communication: a case study of strategies, barriers, and ethical implications. J Public Aff 2020;20:e1967. doi: 10.1002/pa.1967.
West J, Davis L, Bendezú RL, Álvarez Gandía YD, Hughes KS, Godt J, et al. Principles for collaborative risk communication: reducing landslide losses in Puerto Rico. J Emerg Manag 2021;19:41-61. doi: 10.5055/jem.0547.
Abella KAN, Salapa AC. Bridging barriers to risk management preparedness through participatory communication tool: the case of Maguindanaon ethno-religious group in Kabasalan, Pikit, North Cotabato. Cognizance J Multidiscip Stud 2024;4:395-400. doi: 10.47760/cognizance.2024.v04i12.037.
Heinkel SB, Miller C, Thiebes B, Than ZM, Kyi TT, Aung T, et al. Institutional risk and crisis communication on natural hazards and disaster risks in Yangon, Myanmar. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2025;116:105064. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.105064.
Arefi F, Tavan A, Moradi SM, Daneshi S, Farahmandnia H. Identifying challenges and future directions of flood hazards mitigation strategies in health facilities: a systematic literature review. BMC Emerg Med 2025;25:174. doi: 10.1186/s12873-025-01339-0.
Sacyaten CS. Crisis communication in times of disasters: public perceptions on the timeliness and clarity of safety announcements: a systematic literature review. Int J Disaster Risk Manag 2025;7:193-207. doi: 10.18485/ijdrm.2025.7.2.11.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.