IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2019) 10-2

Research article
erdParticipatory Risk Assessment of Nong Han Wetland,Thailand
PRAJYA NGAMJAN*
Kasetsart University, Chalermpharakiat Sakon Nakhon Province Campus, Sakon Nakhon,
Thailand
Email: prachya.ng@ku.th

THODSAPOL CHATURABUL
Kasetsart University, Chalermpharakiat Sakon Nakhon Province Campus, Sakon Nakhon,
ThailandReceived 30 December 2018

Accepted 30 July 2019(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Recognised as a Wetland of International Importance, the Nong Han Wetland(NHW), in Sakon Nakhon, Thailand, was selected as a study site for a risk assessment,
which is an integral part of wetland management planning. The study demonstrated theprocess and presented the results of a risk assessment adopted in the NHW. The research
postulates a simple risk assessment framework, where stakeholder participation is the keyelement. Following Ramsar’s guideline, tailored to suit the objectives of the study, the risk
assessment framework involved (1) identifying problems and risks; (2) quantifying risks;and (3) proposing prevention and mitigation measures. Data were collected via focus groupand questionnaire. The total number of participants was 217 stakeholders from 49 villages
in the NHW. Eleven issues were identified, namely: (1) an increase in aquatic plant growth;(2) sedimentation; (3) degradation of water quality; (4) reduction and extinction ofindigenous fish species; (5) non-existence of water laws; (6) land-rights; (7) conflicts ofjoint natural resource utilization; (8) sufficiency of data and information; (9) flooding; (10)draught; and (11) climate change. Risks were evaluated and ranked in terms of risk
perception, and participants from different locations perceived degrees of risk ratherdifferently. Nonetheless, when all the participants were analysed integratedly, the highest
common risks shared were an increase in aquatic plant growth, sedimentation, degradationof water quality, and reduction and extinction of indigenous fish species. In addition, a setof risk prevention and mitigation measures was also drawn from the participatory risk
assessment process. The results could be employed as a guideline for future plans andinterventions of the wetland management following the bottom-up approach adhered to theIntegrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) principles. The process not only drew
conclusions and recommendations regarding risk management, but also created risk
awareness and enhanced the degree of stakeholder engagement.
Keywords Nong Han Wetland, participatory risk assessment, risk perception, Integrated
Water Resources Management

INTRODUCTION
Nong Han Wetland (NHW), in Sakon Nakhon Province, Thailand, has been recognized as aWetland of International Importance (MNRE, 2009). It is the largest natural lake in the northeast ofThailand and the country’s second largest after Bueng Boraphet, Nakhon Sawan Province. TheNHW connects to the Mekong River via the Nam Kam River, approximately 123 kilometres inlength. The location of the NHW is shown in Fig. 1. The Nong Han Basin covers the area of 583
km2, where the wetland covers the area of 123 km2 with an average depth of 1.9 m., composing
paddy fields, grass lands, and village communities (Chaturabul and Pongput, 2013). Abundant innatural resources, Nong Han is a complex and important ecosystem and is vital to the livelihoods ofthe local communities (MRC, 2017).
Ⓒ ISERD

27

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2019) 10-2

The NHW has been managed by various governmental agencies. Due to various factors,
mainly anthropic disturbance, various issues have been reported, namely, floods, draught,
degradation of water quality, increases in aquatic plants, sedimentation, and the reduction andextinction of indigenous fish species (MRC, 2017). This demands a well-integrated plan for thewetland management, whereas risk assessment is an integral part of the management-planning
processes for wetlands (Ramsar, 1999). In addition, prior to this study, a risk analysis had neverbeen conducted on the NHW. This research therefore is a first attempt at a risk analysis of Nong
Han by employing a participatory risk assessment methodology, which is a bottom-up approach
involving local communities in identifying, deciding solution measures, and implementing andevaluating interventions. It is well noted that participation from stakeholders is important to thesuccess of policy implementation (see for example Erftemeijer and Bualuang, 2002; Trisurat. 2006).

Fig. 1 Location of Nong Han WetlandOBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study are: (1) to present a comprehensive risk analysis of the NHW; (2) todetermine the pressures and impacts on the environment and community livelihoods in the NHW;
(3) to propose prevention and mitigation measures of the risks elicited by the participants; and (4)to promote a community participatory approach and capacitate stakeholders with integrated water
resource methodology.
METHODOLOGY
The study adopted the risk assessment framework of the Wetland Risk Assessment proposed by theRamsar Convention Secretariat (1999) tailored to suit the scope of the study, as shown in Fig. 2 below.
(1) Identifyproblems and risks(2) Quantify risks(3) Propose prevention
and mitigation measures

Fig. 2 Risk assessment frameworkⒸ ISERD

28

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2019) 10-2

The analysis combined both qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitatively, in order togather primary data, focus groups were organised. Quantitatively, the information drawn wasquantified in terms of risk ranking. Stakeholder participation was key in all steps. The process isoutlined herewith.
1. Identify Problems and Risks
Closely related, problems and risk identifications were carried out hand-in-hand. Problems can bedefined as undesired incidents, whereas associated risks are the corresponding consequences andlikelihoods. Problems and risks were initially formulated in a series of workshops, held by a civilsociety in Sakon Nakhon called the Chomrom Song Serm Kon Dee, consisting of direct
stakeholders, including civil servants, business owners, and community residents.
Eleven issues were identified: 1. an increase in aquatic plant growth; 2. sedimentation; 3.
degradation of water quality; 4. reduction and extinction of indigenous fish species; 5. lack of waterlaws; 6. land-rights issues; 7. conflicts of joint natural resource utilization; 8. existence of andsufficiency of data and information; 9. floods; 10. draught; and 11. climate change. These issues
were later introduced to the other four workshops organized in the NHW in order to gather
agreements and additional issues from the participants.
2. Quantify Risks
Risk perception methodology was employed. Risk perception refers to human subjective judgments
about the likelihood of negative occurrences such as hazards and threats to the environment or
health (Paek and Hove, 2017). In other words, it indicates the extent to which people know, andwhat they feel, about threats and likelihoods, and gives a general overview of the status quo of risks
pertaining to environmental settings.
There are various methods for quantifying risk perception (see e.g. Weber et al., 2002; andJanmaimool and Watanabe, 2014). This study devised a simple, straight-forward and low-cost
method. First, the questionnaire was designed around the issues identified in the previous step.
Eleven close-ended questions required the respondents to subjectively evaluate the degree of risks
and the likelihood of the issues to occur. Second, response options were coded as “High = 3,”“Moderate = 2,” and “Low = 1.” Then, risk and likeliness were arithmetically averaged, and scaled
to the range of 0 to 1.
3. Prevention and Mitigation Measures
During the workshops, the participants were asked to participate in a group discussion and toactively participate and exchange their ideas on the related prevention and mitigation measures.
Table 1 Workshop participants and venues
Venue (all in Sakon Nakhon Province)
Phon Na Kaew District Hall, Phone Na Kaew District
Lao Po Daeng Sub-district Municipality, Muang District
Chiang Khruea Sub-district Municipality, Muang District
Sakon Nakhon City Municipality, Muang District
Total

Respondent
50574961217

Village1116121049

Sub-district
3431114. Risk Analysis Workshop
Four workshops were organised to collect data from the communities in four different locations
around Nong Han during 2016. Table 1 and Fig. 3, respectively, illustrate and report the numbersof participants, villages, and sub-districts they represented. The total number of participants wasⒸ ISERD

29

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2019) 10-2

217, including direct stakeholders, such as sub-district headsmen, village chiefs and assistants, andvillage committees.

Fig. 3 Study site and workshop venue
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section presents the results; namely, risk logs, prevention and mitigation measures, and discussion.
1. Risk Log
The risk log summarized the results of the risk analysis in terms of likely impacts on theenvironment and community of the NHW.
Table 2 Ranked risk log
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Issue
Increase in aquatic plant growth
Sedimentation
Degradation of water quality
Reduction and extinction of indigenous fish species
Land-rights issue
Climate change
Draught
Conflicts of joint natural resources utilization
Nong Han’s data and information sufficiency
Lack of water law
FloodⒸ ISERD

30

Impact
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.85
0.83
0.830.80
0.80

Likelihood
0.96
0.94
0.93
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.84
0.83
0.82
0.80

Rating
0.90
0.87
0.85
0.79
0.78
0.77
0.74
0.70
0.69
0.66
0.64

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2019) 10-2

The first four highest-ranked issues were all closely related. Issues such as sufficiency of dataand information about Nong Han, lack of water law, and flooding were ranked last, but they werestill considered high both in terms of impact and likelihood.
2. Prevention and Mitigation Measures
The proposed prevention and mitigation measures were the result of stakeholder participation incollectively eliciting solutions to the common problems shared. The measures are classified
herewith as structural and non-structural. On the one hand, structural measures are fixed or
permanent physical constructions for preventing and mitigating risks. On the other hand, nonstructural measures do not involve physical facilities. Due to the limited space, the measures are
only briefly summarised as follows.
2.1 Structural Prevention and Mitigation Measures

Build more wastewater treatment plants (at the present, there are only two plants in the NHW).
Build adequate drainage systems and improve the existing drainage systems.
Build an embankment/dike, construct more reservoirs to increase water storage, and constructroads surrounding Nong Han.

2.2 Non-Structural Prevention and Mitigation Measures
These non-structural prevention and mitigation measures are grouped into 1) regulatory measures;2) awareness and education measures; and 3) non-structural modifications.
Regulatory measures:
 Enact and enforce water laws or water resources agreements, namely, Nong Han
agreements/laws to conserve fish species and to prescribe penalties for violations.
 Amend the existing law, the Royal Decree of Demarcation of Restricted Land in Muang
District, Sakon Nakhon Province B.E.2484 (1941), to solve land rights conflicts in the NHW.
Awareness and education measures: Create awareness and involvement, and disseminate knowledge of integrated water resource
management and how to use water wisely and equitably.
 Campaign stakeholders to prevent pollution of the NHW.
 Promote organic farming, stop/reduce using chemical fertilizer and pesticides.
 Promote reforestation and preserve the existing natural resources.
 Create awareness and conserve the population of indigenous fish species, and campaign forsustainable fishing.
 Organise discussions between the government and the people in order to improve common
understanding.
 Create a data-management centre in order to organise studies and data collection, and to
publicise accurate data and information.
Nonstructural modifications: Employ natural methods to treat wastewater, e.g., use mosquito fern or water fern to absorb heavy
metals and phosphates, and increase herbivorous fish species that feed on aquatic vegetation.
 Remove and control aquatic weed for example through dredging operations and weed removalmachines.
 Plant and maintain an appropriate vegetative buffer on the shoreline to prevent soil erosion andsedimentation.

Ⓒ ISERD

31

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2019) 10-2

CONCLUSIONSIn addition to the measures introduced above, the participants also recommended developing aNong Han management plan, which should include draught protection and relief, and flood
prevention, protection, and mitigation. On the one hand, engineered structures may eliminate therisk to some degree. On the other hand, non-structural measures are less costly and requireparticipation through a process of behaviour influencing, usually via stakeholder capacity building(Taylor and Wong, 2002). Both structural and non-structural measures recommended from thisstudy can be employed as a part of wetland management planning. Importantly, the two measures
should be balanced; for structural measures to be effective, stakeholders should be aware, prepared,
and duly trained (Bons, 2013). The participatory risk assessment procedures proposed can beemployed in different environmental management planning settings. The study not only drew
conclusions and made recommendations regarding risk management, but also created risk
awareness and enhanced the degree of stakeholder engagement.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is a part of the “Transboundary Cooperation for River Basin Management between
Lao PDR and Thailand in Xe-Bang-Hieng of Lao PDR and Nam Kam of Thailand (NK-XBH)
Project,” which is one of the five transboundary MIWRM (Mekong Integrated Water Resources
Management) projects facilitated by the Thai National Mekong Committee (TNMC), the MekongRiver Commission (MRC), and funded by the World Bank.
The authors would like to thank Ms Panporn Suwan, Thai National Mekong Committee
Secretariat (TNMCS), and Dr. Piriya Uraiwong, Mekong River Commission Secretariat (MRCS),
for their constructive comments, help, and support. The first author would also like to especiallythank Mr. Sansonthi Boonyothayan, the Thai National Consultant of the NK-XBH Project. Last but
not least, gratitude also goes to all of the workshop participants for their enthusiastic and active
cooperation and input. All errors, should there be any, are solely our responsibility.
REFERENCES
Bons, K. 2013. Comparing structural and non-structural measures. Flood Risk Management and Urban
Resilience Workshop II, May 28-29, 2013, Seoul, Korea.
Chaturabul, T. and Pongput, K. 2013. Nong Han: A physical view. In Lesson Learnt from Nong Han. Sopsan
Petchkam (Ed.), Pornsiri Publishing, 32-51. (in Thai)
Erftemeijer, P.L.A. and Bualuang, A. 2002. Participation of local communities in mangrove forest
rehabilitation in Pattani Bay, Thailand, Learning from successes and failures. In: Gawler, M. (Ed.)
Strategies for Wise Use of Wetlands: Best Practices in Participatory Management, Proceedings of aWorkshop held at the 2nd International Conference on Wetlands and Development, Wetlands
International, IUCN, WWF Publication, 56, Wageningen, Netherlands, 27-36. Retrieved fromhttp://globalrestorationnetwork.org/uploads/files/CaseStudyAttachments/54_pattani-bay. pdf
Janmaimool, P. and Watanabe, T. 2014. Evaluating determinants of environmental risk perception for risk
management in contaminated sites. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
11 (6), 6291-6313.
Mekong River Commission. 2017. Trans-boundary cooperation for river basin management between Lao
PDR and Thailand in Xe Bang Hieng Basin-Lao PDR and Nam Kam Basin-Thailand. Joint Report onWetland Management between Xe Champhone-Lao PDR and Nong Han-Thailand project.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. 2009. Revised directory of wetlands of national andinternational importance of Thailand, and management measures for wetland conservation. Cabinet
resolution 2552 B.E. http://chm-thai.onep.go.th/wetland/pdf/cabinet3Nov2009.pdf. (in Thai)
Paek, Hye-Jin. and Hove, T. 2017. Risk perceptions and risk characteristics. Oxford Research Enclycopedia.
Ramsar Convention Secretariat. 1999. Wetland risk assessment framework: Resolution VII.10. People andwetlands. The Vital Link, 7th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention onWetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), San José, Costa Rica, 10-18 May 1999.
Taylor, A. and Wong, T. 2002. Non-structural stormwater quality best management practices, An overviewⒸ ISERD

32

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2019) 10-2of their use, value, cost and evaluation. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology.
Technical Report 02/11, https://ewater.org.au/archive/crcch/archive/pubs/pdfs/technical200211.pdf.
Trisurat, Y. 2006. Community-based wetland management in northern Thailand. International Journal ofEnvironmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 2, 49-62.
Weber, E.U., Blais, A.R. and Betz, N.E. 2002. A domain-speciﬁc risk-attitude scale, Measuring risk
perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263-290.

Ⓒ ISERD33