Flood Disaster Preparedness Indices (FDPI)

Flood Disaster Preparedness Indices (FDPI)
ENTRY DATE: 25 December 2014| LAST UPDATE: 25 December 2014
Categories: Disaster Prevention | Flood disaster (Soft measures)
Technological Maturity: Under review
Technology Owners:

International Centre for Water Hazard and Risk Management (ICHARM), Public Works Research Institute (PWRI)

Needs Addressed

The need to enhance local disaster prevention capacity as a of flood disaster countermeasure.

Adaptation Effects

The technology allows users to visualize progress in creating local disaster preparedness systems, through self-diagnosis on eight criteria relating to local disaster prevention capacity, including physical infrastructure, evacuation plans and systems, information and education for residents, etc.

Overview and Features
  • FDPI (Flood Disaster Preparedness Indices: FDPI) is currently at the development stage by the International Centre for Water Hazard and Risk Management (ICHARM). It is also one of the projects being implemented by the Typhoon Committee of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP). 
  • By answering an online questionnaire based on Flood Disaster Preparedness Indices (FDPI), users can do a self-diagnosis of the degree of preparedness for flood disaster based on the individual situation in each community. The questionnaire can also provide the opportunity to learn about measures that could be taken to improve the disaster preparedness of the community. 
  • The questionnaire is available on the website, with about 80 specific questions for eight indices. Respondents can choose from five possible responses on the degree of preparation. After answering the questionnaire, the results are quantified and displayed in eight charts, as indicated. 
    Figure: Response input screen of online questionnaire

    Table: Main Indicators in Questionnaire

    (number of questions)

    Examples of Questions

    1 Hard (physical infrastructure) counter measures (10)

    Schools and health facility safety inspection, existence of levee construction,  construction plans for drainage facilities, etc.

    2 Flood disaster mitigation plans and standards (7)

    Budget, consistency of disaster management plans, past records, restrictions on land use and development, etc.

    3 Flood disaster mitigation systems (8)

    Government officers education and training, framework of effective technologies, stockpiling of daily commodities, etc.

    4 Evacuation plans and systems (9)

    Emergency communication plans, evacuation shelters, etc.

    5 Emergency and recovery plans and systems (13)

    Disaster management personnel responsibilities, disaster management plan procedures, etc.

    6 Leadership and collaboration between organizations (9)

    Community leaders’ attitudes towards disaster management, main policy for disaster management, etc.

    7 Information and education for local residents (12)

    Community residents' education and training, flood hazard maps, school education, etc.

    8 Community strength (7)

    Relationships with neighbors, participation in local activities, etc.



    Table: Possible responses to questions



    Relatively Strong


    Relatively Weak




  • No fee is charged to take the questionnaire.
  • Access to a computer and the Internet is required. 
Energy Source

Electrical power is used for computer use. 

Considerations (technology transfer criteria, challenges, etc.)

Respondents have praised the questionnaire for its contents and results, but its use is not yet widespread. One challenge is further promoting the use of the questionnaire, and the effective utilization of information obtained by it. 

Co-benefits, Suitability for Developing Countries
  • Local communities can ascertain and evaluate on their own the status of disaster prevention preparedness. International organizations can gain an understanding of the situation in the local community.
  • The technology strengthens community-based capacity for disaster prevention, with a focus on community and local government in developing countries, where disaster management at the national level may be difficult to do. 

Case study: Example from Thailand

Figure: Results for HatYai (above)


Figure: Results for Ubon Ratchathani (above)

Information Resources
  • International Centre for Water Hazard and Risk Management (ICHARM), Public Works Research Institute(PWRI)
  • Typhoon committee
  • Tadashi Nakasu, Toshio Okazumi, Yoshikazu Shimizu: Development of Flood Disaster Preparedness Indices (FDPI) in Thailand: Focus on the Cases of Ubon Rachathani and Hat Yai, Thai Kenkyu (Journal of Thai Studies), 12, 65-81 (in Japanese).