**2. The 2014 flood**

The Peninsular of Malaysia has a long shoreline with its east coast facing the South China Sea, and most of its major cities located near the coast. In addition, there are at least 26 major rivers from 3 states in Malaysia, namely Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang, flowing from the east coast into the South China Sea, as seen in **Figure 1**.

Frequent flooding over extended periods is considered to be the most natural hazard in Malaysia and affects a large number of the population over a wide area, causing socioeconomic damage. Based on the information published by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Malaysia, in June 2007, Malaysia has experienced major floods since 1920, especially in the years 1926, 1963, 1965, 1967, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1979, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2005, December 2006 and January 2007, 2010 and the most recent one in 2014 [1]. These flood events occurred in various states, including Terengganu and the capital city of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. This can be seen in **Table 1**, which lists the date of the major floods and the losses incurred by them.

Engagement of Local Heroes in Managing Flood Disaster: Lessons Learnt from the 2014 Flood… http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74262 87

**Figure 1.** The three states affected by the 2014 flood.

can only hope that rescue and relief aid arrive quickly, therefore reducing the impact of the situation. In the 2014 flood incident, impacts were seen to be comparatively less serious for

This chapter investigates flood preparation and management of the major flood event that struck the country in December 2014. Interest lies in gaining an understanding of why and how the district of Kemaman was able to report a less serious impact despite undergoing weather conditions similar to other flood-plagued districts. Findings point to the use of technology, procedures and processes, and the engagement of locals during the response and relief phases. The management of flooding in Malaysia typically goes through the following phases: prediction – warning – emergency relief – rehabilitation – reconstruction. The study shows how the local community was involved in making significant contributions in providing prompt responses during a flood, which in this study is based on the case of Kemaman, Malaysia.

Section 2 of the chapter explains the formulation that led to the "worst" flood – the supermoon, monsoon, shoreline and rivers. This is important to establish that the flood districts within the states of Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang have indeed shared similar flood factors. Then, comparisons of impacts experienced by selected districts are highlighted. Recounts of the events are collected from site visits, reports by the Malaysian National Security Council,

In Section 3, the success story emerging from the flood management (FM) practice in Kemaman is presented. Central to the story is the active and positive roles of local leaders and people from the district. A post-disaster investigation to probe into the engagement of the local community found that early engagement, which started with FM awareness and training, helped empower the locals, who have the advantage of speaking the dialect and understanding the

The Peninsular of Malaysia has a long shoreline with its east coast facing the South China Sea, and most of its major cities located near the coast. In addition, there are at least 26 major rivers from 3 states in Malaysia, namely Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang, flowing from the east

Frequent flooding over extended periods is considered to be the most natural hazard in Malaysia and affects a large number of the population over a wide area, causing socioeconomic damage. Based on the information published by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Malaysia, in June 2007, Malaysia has experienced major floods since 1920, especially in the years 1926, 1963, 1965, 1967, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1979, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2005, December 2006 and January 2007, 2010 and the most recent one in 2014 [1]. These flood events occurred in various states, including Terengganu and the capital city of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. This can be seen in **Table 1**, which lists the date of the major floods and the

topographies, making them ideal flood emergency responders and volunteers.

news media and social media.

**2. The 2014 flood**

losses incurred by them.

coast into the South China Sea, as seen in **Figure 1**.

areas where preparation was heightened before, during and after the flood event.

86 Achievements and Challenges of Integrated River Basin Management


**Table 1.** Flood history in Malaysia.

The 2014 flood affected most of the states on the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia due to the northeast monsoon that occurs between October and March every year. These states receive heavy rainfall, which leads to severe flooding almost every year, including the months of November and December 2014. The flood that occurred at the Kemaman area of Terengganu was due to a combination of physical factors, including high tides and elevation. The flood factor of high tides in 2014 was also made worse by the supermoon phenomenon, which is known to change the level of sea tides. When the supermoon is combined with the topographic conditions of the east coast in Malaysia, which has several rivers along the shoreline of these states, it has the potential to aggravate the monsoon flood that occurs annually during the monsoon season. The supermoon effect that was compounded by the northeast monsoon impact in that year brought about a notably higher and prolonged tidal level. These three factors – (1) the supermoon phenomenon, (2) the topographic conditions of Malaysia and (3) the monsoon season – have formulated the worst flood Malaysia has seen in almost 100 years, which is referred to **Table 1**. The first flood was recorded in 1926, and the magnitude of losses can be seen to increase every year, especially the flood of 2014.

The rising water levels from the 3 main rivers in Kelantan caused 16 roads in 6 districts to be closed. While in Terengganu, 15 roads in 5 districts were closed. The closing of major roads slowed down the rescue activities because rescue teams had difficulty in reaching the victims due to limited access and resources (boats and helicopters). The main utility provider of Malaysia, Tenaga Nasional Berhad, also suspended the electricity supply because the flood might cause damage to, and it was dangerous to operate, electricity substations in affected states. The majority of properties were submerged by the flood waters in the three states. The second option of transportation to deliver relief was also affected because several Keretapi Tanah Melayu (KTM) intercity train services along the east coast route were interrupted due to the rising water levels on the train tracks. Based on the report by the National Security Council, Terengganu had the most evacuees estimated at 32,736 people, followed by the other

Engagement of Local Heroes in Managing Flood Disaster: Lessons Learnt from the 2014 Flood…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74262

89

Flooding was the imminent impact for all the states that were situated in the northeast of Malaysia, along the shoreline of the South China Sea. Terengganu, however, reported a less

The impact of the flood in Terengganu was much less notable compared to Kelantan and Pahang. The success of the milder impact in Terengganu can be attributed to two factors: the unique FM system that was implemented specifically in Kemaman and the standard operating procedure (SOP) that was used throughout the disaster. Both of these factors are the main

The unique FM system in Kemaman relied on both technology and process to ensure an effective and efficient FM system that could be used by all disaster agencies as well as the public directly impacted by the flood. Kemaman also critically depended on its own SOP, which is

Kemaman flood's workforce starts as early as the first quarter of each year, and includes the establishment of a flood management committee and evacuation centres. Both the committees and the evacuation centres are being championed and joined by local people. The participation of these committees involves the district officer, the local head of the village, and the evacuation centres' chairperson. The creation of the SOP pertaining specifically to the flood, which includes roles and responsibilities of the members of the committee, is the collaborative

The establishment of the FM system and SOP has helped Kemaman to successfully manage

Kemaman is successful in FM plan implementation as compared to Kelantan. This is due to the engagement of local leaders in FM plan implementation. The FM plan is one of the outcomes from the established FM system in Malaysia that outlines the participation of multiple agencies with shared objectives, while performing different activities in managing floods. The FM plan consists of tasks, roles and responsibilities of each agency as well as types of information that

serious impact despite being one of the states situated next to the shoreline.

difference between how Kemaman and the other states managed the 2014 flood.

states in Malaysia as shown in **Table 2**.

annually refined and improved after every flood.

effort of the local government and local people.

its flood effectively compared with the other states.

**3. 2014 Kemaman flood management: a success story**

The basic cause of river flooding is the incidence of heavy rainfall (monsoon or convective) and the resultant large concentration of runoff, which exceeds river channel capacity [1]. Floods have resulted in huge losses of millions of dollars in Malaysia. For example, the 2014 flood that hit Terengganu and many other states caused more than MYR 2.9 billion (about USD 0.74 billion) worth of damage and hence was deemed the most expensive flood event ever to occur in Malaysian history. This included the cost of damage to infrastructures, property damage, crop loss, disruption to day-to-day services and healthcare expenses. During this flood event, 21 deaths were reported and around 200,000 people were evacuated from their homes and sheltered in relief centres.

The monsoon season of 2014 was marked by torrential rains that began on 17 December. It was followed by non-stop, heavy rain that lasted for three days, 21–23 December 2014, which charted a record-setting rainfall of 1295 mm, equivalent to the amount of rain usually collected in a span of 64 days. The three main rivers of Kelantan – Galas, Lebir and Kelantan – rose drastically above dangerous water levels, which can be seen in **Table 2**.


**Table 2.** Report for December 29, 2014.

The rising water levels from the 3 main rivers in Kelantan caused 16 roads in 6 districts to be closed. While in Terengganu, 15 roads in 5 districts were closed. The closing of major roads slowed down the rescue activities because rescue teams had difficulty in reaching the victims due to limited access and resources (boats and helicopters). The main utility provider of Malaysia, Tenaga Nasional Berhad, also suspended the electricity supply because the flood might cause damage to, and it was dangerous to operate, electricity substations in affected states. The majority of properties were submerged by the flood waters in the three states. The second option of transportation to deliver relief was also affected because several Keretapi Tanah Melayu (KTM) intercity train services along the east coast route were interrupted due to the rising water levels on the train tracks. Based on the report by the National Security Council, Terengganu had the most evacuees estimated at 32,736 people, followed by the other states in Malaysia as shown in **Table 2**.

The 2014 flood affected most of the states on the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia due to the northeast monsoon that occurs between October and March every year. These states receive heavy rainfall, which leads to severe flooding almost every year, including the months of November and December 2014. The flood that occurred at the Kemaman area of Terengganu was due to a combination of physical factors, including high tides and elevation. The flood factor of high tides in 2014 was also made worse by the supermoon phenomenon, which is known to change the level of sea tides. When the supermoon is combined with the topographic conditions of the east coast in Malaysia, which has several rivers along the shoreline of these states, it has the potential to aggravate the monsoon flood that occurs annually during the monsoon season. The supermoon effect that was compounded by the northeast monsoon impact in that year brought about a notably higher and prolonged tidal level. These three factors – (1) the supermoon phenomenon, (2) the topographic conditions of Malaysia and (3) the monsoon season – have formulated the worst flood Malaysia has seen in almost 100 years, which is referred to **Table 1**. The first flood was recorded in 1926, and the magnitude of losses

The basic cause of river flooding is the incidence of heavy rainfall (monsoon or convective) and the resultant large concentration of runoff, which exceeds river channel capacity [1]. Floods have resulted in huge losses of millions of dollars in Malaysia. For example, the 2014 flood that hit Terengganu and many other states caused more than MYR 2.9 billion (about USD 0.74 billion) worth of damage and hence was deemed the most expensive flood event ever to occur in Malaysian history. This included the cost of damage to infrastructures, property damage, crop loss, disruption to day-to-day services and healthcare expenses. During this flood event, 21 deaths were reported and around 200,000 people were evacuated from

The monsoon season of 2014 was marked by torrential rains that began on 17 December. It was followed by non-stop, heavy rain that lasted for three days, 21–23 December 2014, which charted a record-setting rainfall of 1295 mm, equivalent to the amount of rain usually collected in a span of 64 days. The three main rivers of Kelantan – Galas, Lebir and Kelantan –

**State Victims Area/location Level during flood Safe level**

34.11 m 6.88 m 10.41 m

247.69 m 14.86 m

25 m 5 m 9 m

Alert level Alert level

rose drastically above dangerous water levels, which can be seen in **Table 2**.

Tambatan Diraja

Sungai Golok, Rantau Panjang

Sungai Selama, Selama

Johor 328 N/A Pahang 29,423 N/A

Terengganu 32,736 Sungai Kemaman 37.6 m 36 m

can be seen to increase every year, especially the flood of 2014.

88 Achievements and Challenges of Integrated River Basin Management

their homes and sheltered in relief centres.

Kelantan 31,441 Tangga Krai, Sungai Kelantan

Perak 7774 Tasik Temengor, Hulu Perak

**Table 2.** Report for December 29, 2014.

Flooding was the imminent impact for all the states that were situated in the northeast of Malaysia, along the shoreline of the South China Sea. Terengganu, however, reported a less serious impact despite being one of the states situated next to the shoreline.

The impact of the flood in Terengganu was much less notable compared to Kelantan and Pahang. The success of the milder impact in Terengganu can be attributed to two factors: the unique FM system that was implemented specifically in Kemaman and the standard operating procedure (SOP) that was used throughout the disaster. Both of these factors are the main difference between how Kemaman and the other states managed the 2014 flood.

The unique FM system in Kemaman relied on both technology and process to ensure an effective and efficient FM system that could be used by all disaster agencies as well as the public directly impacted by the flood. Kemaman also critically depended on its own SOP, which is annually refined and improved after every flood.

Kemaman flood's workforce starts as early as the first quarter of each year, and includes the establishment of a flood management committee and evacuation centres. Both the committees and the evacuation centres are being championed and joined by local people. The participation of these committees involves the district officer, the local head of the village, and the evacuation centres' chairperson. The creation of the SOP pertaining specifically to the flood, which includes roles and responsibilities of the members of the committee, is the collaborative effort of the local government and local people.

The establishment of the FM system and SOP has helped Kemaman to successfully manage its flood effectively compared with the other states.

### **3. 2014 Kemaman flood management: a success story**

Kemaman is successful in FM plan implementation as compared to Kelantan. This is due to the engagement of local leaders in FM plan implementation. The FM plan is one of the outcomes from the established FM system in Malaysia that outlines the participation of multiple agencies with shared objectives, while performing different activities in managing floods. The FM plan consists of tasks, roles and responsibilities of each agency as well as types of information that should be shared across agencies. Local leaders are considered as one of the entities in the FM plan that has been given its own set of tasks, roles and responsibilities and information, which is sent to the agencies to reduce the effects of floods in their areas or villages.

More than 34,000 victims in the district were evacuated during the flood of 2014. The milder impacts were partly attributed to having a good operating procedure and the involvement of

Engagement of Local Heroes in Managing Flood Disaster: Lessons Learnt from the 2014 Flood…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74262

91

The SOP in FM, which was implemented by the district, was awarded a gold standard for acknowledging its success in organising and implementing FM plans during the 2014 flood [9]. The objectives of the SOP are to act as a main reference for FM in Kemaman, as a basis to improve the FM-related process and to create a system involving the public (including students) to play a role in assisting the victims and to identify resources and risks in FM. The SOP has outlined the organisational structures (membership) in FM from district officer level to committee level, workflow for each of the FM phases (before flood, during flood, after flood), clear roles and responsibilities for each of the committees, cross-agency coordination through well-defined relationships with other responding agencies, information sharing processes, resource management and risk management. The SOP elaborates the mechanism to respond

**ii.** Information sharing with the affected community through pamphlets, announcement at the mosque before prayer and displaying information on the community hall notice

**iii.** Sharing of resources across agencies such as telecommunication devices (Government

**iv.** Partnership with private telecommunication companies to elevate the communication

**v.** Information sharing across agencies using applications such as WhatsApp and Telegram.

the local community. **Figure 3** shows one of the views of the Kemaman flood in 2014.

**i.** Identification of places for the stranded community such as mosques.

Integrated Radio Network (GIRN) and walkie-talkies).

**Figure 3.** View of Kemaman flood in 2014 (source: Astro Awani, 2014).

equipment cabinet at the communication signal transmitter site.

**3.3. Operating procedure**

to flood, which includes:

board.

Section 3.1 provides an overview of the implementation of the FM plan in the state of Kelantan and the district of Kemaman, Terengganu.

#### **3.1. The state of Kelantan**

The 2014 flood, which affected 70% of the villages or nearly half of the state population [4], was claimed to be the worst flood recorded in the history of Kelantan [5]. This flood was known as *bah kuning* (yellow flood) due its high mud content [6, 7]. As reported by [8], Kelantan was the worst affected state, which recorded 14 deaths and more than 158,000 victims displaced. Sixteen roads in six districts were closed due to the uncontrolled water flowing from the rivers: Sungai Lebir, Sungai Kelantan and Sungai Golok. The torrential rain, which started on 17 December 2014, caused flash floods and affected 3390 people in Kuala Krai [6]. The continuous rain from 21 December to 23 December in Gua Musang resulted in a rise of water in three major rivers in Kelantan, Sungai galas, Sungai Lebir and Sungai Kelantan, to dangerous levels [8]

The aggravated flood was attributed to the change in climate pattern, adverse weather effects, uncontrolled land management and deforestation and exploitation of land resources [4]. Additionally, a government minister added that unsuccessful implementation of the SOP was the major contributing factor to the crisis in Kelantan [4]. **Figure 2** Shows one of the views of the Kelantan flood in 2014

#### **3.2. The case of Kemaman**

Terengganu, a south neighbouring state of Kelantan, despite suffering the same elements of nature, experienced a milder impact. Kemaman, a district in the state of Terengganu, due to its geographical location and landscape, has considered flooding as a common phenomenon.

**Figure 2.** View of Kelantan flood in 2014.

More than 34,000 victims in the district were evacuated during the flood of 2014. The milder impacts were partly attributed to having a good operating procedure and the involvement of the local community. **Figure 3** shows one of the views of the Kemaman flood in 2014.

#### **3.3. Operating procedure**

should be shared across agencies. Local leaders are considered as one of the entities in the FM plan that has been given its own set of tasks, roles and responsibilities and information, which

Section 3.1 provides an overview of the implementation of the FM plan in the state of Kelantan

The 2014 flood, which affected 70% of the villages or nearly half of the state population [4], was claimed to be the worst flood recorded in the history of Kelantan [5]. This flood was known as *bah kuning* (yellow flood) due its high mud content [6, 7]. As reported by [8], Kelantan was the worst affected state, which recorded 14 deaths and more than 158,000 victims displaced. Sixteen roads in six districts were closed due to the uncontrolled water flowing from the rivers: Sungai Lebir, Sungai Kelantan and Sungai Golok. The torrential rain, which started on 17 December 2014, caused flash floods and affected 3390 people in Kuala Krai [6]. The continuous rain from 21 December to 23 December in Gua Musang resulted in a rise of water in three major rivers in Kelantan, Sungai galas, Sungai Lebir and Sungai Kelantan, to dangerous levels [8]

The aggravated flood was attributed to the change in climate pattern, adverse weather effects, uncontrolled land management and deforestation and exploitation of land resources [4]. Additionally, a government minister added that unsuccessful implementation of the SOP was the major contributing factor to the crisis in Kelantan [4]. **Figure 2** Shows one of the views of

Terengganu, a south neighbouring state of Kelantan, despite suffering the same elements of nature, experienced a milder impact. Kemaman, a district in the state of Terengganu, due to its geographical location and landscape, has considered flooding as a common phenomenon.

is sent to the agencies to reduce the effects of floods in their areas or villages.

and the district of Kemaman, Terengganu.

90 Achievements and Challenges of Integrated River Basin Management

**3.1. The state of Kelantan**

the Kelantan flood in 2014

**3.2. The case of Kemaman**

**Figure 2.** View of Kelantan flood in 2014.

The SOP in FM, which was implemented by the district, was awarded a gold standard for acknowledging its success in organising and implementing FM plans during the 2014 flood [9]. The objectives of the SOP are to act as a main reference for FM in Kemaman, as a basis to improve the FM-related process and to create a system involving the public (including students) to play a role in assisting the victims and to identify resources and risks in FM. The SOP has outlined the organisational structures (membership) in FM from district officer level to committee level, workflow for each of the FM phases (before flood, during flood, after flood), clear roles and responsibilities for each of the committees, cross-agency coordination through well-defined relationships with other responding agencies, information sharing processes, resource management and risk management. The SOP elaborates the mechanism to respond to flood, which includes:


**Figure 3.** View of Kemaman flood in 2014 (source: Astro Awani, 2014).

**vi.** Well-planned measures to minimise the identified FM risk, for example, walkie-talkies and GIRN are used in case of disruption to the telecommunication signal.

Local heroes in the context of Kemaman would be persons with knowledge of the local areas and those who clearly understood the disaster situation as well as directly responding to the unpredictable conditions based on their experience. In the opinion of others, local heroes possess special achievements, abilities or personal qualities and are regarded as role models or ideal leaders to take charge during a flood. The involvement of local people along with the local authorities has established the Kemaman SOP as an outstanding procedure to be followed compared with other districts. **Figure 4** illustrates the information exchange and collaboration

Engagement of Local Heroes in Managing Flood Disaster: Lessons Learnt from the 2014 Flood…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74262

93

**Figure 4.** Information exchange and coordination between the local heroes in the case of the 2014 flood at Kemaman.

**vii.** Emphasis of community involvement in the document. The flood simulation activity includes the roles and responsibilities of the village development and security committee in FM.

#### **3.4. People**

According to Dr. Sharifah Zarah Syed Ahmad [10], Secretary at the Ministry of Communications and Multimedia, there were several contributing factors for the successful implementation of the FM plan in Kemaman. The success story of Kemaman was due to collaboration with the public such as local leaders. During the preflood preparation phase, a flood central committee, which comprises representatives from each of the constituencies in Kemaman, was deployed. The constituencies decided on the location of the main relief centre and have involved the public in the flood awareness campaign.

The people of Kemaman are well equipped with knowledge of how to respond to disaster. Information pertaining to the relief centre location, flood kits and actions in responding to disaster (before, during and after) was imparted to the people either verbally or via pamphlets. The address of the GPS coordinate to assist helicopters to land was identified based on the advice from local leaders. The helipad location is crucial to ensure the army can send and pick up supplies for victims. The rapid dissemination of information was aided by the utilisation of information and communication technology. The people are aware of the flood early warning routine and react quickly according to the plan. Text messages were sent to the people estimating the time that the flood would arrive at the identified locations. As such, the local community could respond to the effects of flooding by saving important documents and evacuating to the identified relief centre.

From the case of Kelantan and Kemaman, it can be noted that local leaders' enrolment is crucial for the successful implementation of the FM plan. The local leaders help to inculcate awareness among their community for timely response during flooding. The dissemination of information between local leaders and the community is essential for speedy action in the event of a flood.
