Thai case studiesCase study · foundationPublic review edition

Andaman tsunami 2004: from warning to action

Read a warning-focused retrospective, then examine access to information for communities and visitors.

AI-generated illustration of HADR learning and exercise, not an actual event
AI-generated learning illustration, not a record of an actual event.
A learning synthesis based on the listed sources, not yet endorsed by an expert reviewer. Activities and rubrics are proposed by this project.

What will you be able to do?

From outcomes to observable evidence

case-tsunami-2004 · v1.0.0

Intended outcomes

Knowledge

Distinguish facts and evidence limits in this case.

Skills

Design an audience–channel–support matrix for a fictional coastal community, including message testing and limitations.

Ethics

Explain effects on recipients and people who may be excluded.

Character

Revise reasoning when new evidence or personal limits emerge.

Practise through an activity

Design an audience–channel–support matrix for a fictional coastal community, including message testing and limitations.

Collect evidence for assessment

Knowledge

A source-linked evidence-scope note.

case-tsunami-2004-K
Skills

The proposed artifact, with assumptions and owners.

case-tsunami-2004-S
Ethics

Choice rationale and an inclusion check.

case-tsunami-2004-E
Character

Before/after reflection and improvement actions.

case-tsunami-2004-C

Project learning synthesis showing proposed outcomes, activity and evidence. This is not a university-endorsed assessment framework.

Module references:[tsunami-review][wmo-warning][chs-2024][who-simex-2017][ocha-data][who-aar-2019][aunqa-2020]

Suggested preparation: HADR foundations and people-centred assistance

Event and evidence

UNDRR's 26 December 2014 retrospective considers lessons ten years after the Indian Ocean tsunami, including warning and community preparedness. This case uses Thailand's Andaman coast as its learning context.

Original sources: [tsunami-review]

What the evidence supports

The main source is a retrospective article, not a complete AAR. It does not establish every agency's performance or definitive losses.

Original sources: [tsunami-review]

Connect disciplines for analysis

Proposed analysis: distinguish an available warning from receipt, understanding and ability to act. Consider visitors unfamiliar with routes, people without phones and those requiring mobility assistance. Record what you need to know before designing a plan.

Apply in an exercise

Project-proposed activity: Design an audience–channel–support matrix for a fictional coastal community, including message testing and limitations. Exercise data are fictional and must be separated from historical facts.

See the process at a glance

A synthesized learning diagram. Read it alongside the lesson and original sources.

  1. Set the scope

    Record time, geography, evidence type and unresolved claims.

  2. Connect information and roles

    Map actors and information handovers in the fictional task.

  3. Create evidence

    Develop a plan with assumptions, owners and rationale.

  4. Review and revise

    Record what changed, the evidence behind it and an improvement owner.

Fictional learning scenario

Explore a decision

Fictional scenario: a phone warning has been sent, but visitors use several languages and some residents have no phone. What should you propose?

From knowledge to evidence

Design an audience–channel–support matrix for a fictional coastal community, including message testing and limitations.

CriterionProficientDeveloping
Evidence and scopeSeparates facts, assumptions and limits with sources.Combines times or areas without limits.
Coordination and artifactArtifact addresses the task with owners and verification points.Lists actions without coordination or missing information.
Access and dignityChecks exclusion and explains mitigation.Primarily prioritizes team convenience.
ImprovementShows how evidence changed a decision.Declares success without checking assumptions.

A proposed rubric for educators to adapt, not a university accreditation standard.

Check your understanding

Answer all 5 questions, then review the explanations. This score is for self-study.

1What kind of main evidence is used here?
2What needs further checking in the proposed warning task?
3Fictional scenario: a phone warning has been sent, but visitors use several languages and some residents have no phone. What should you propose?
4In this case exercise, which choice demonstrates ethical reasoning?
5If new evidence conflicts with the team's initial conclusion, what should it do?

References & further verification

Cite this module

PK-Research. (2026). Andaman tsunami 2004: from warning to action (case-tsunami-2004, v1.0.0). HADR–CPX Knowledge Commons. https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/modules/case-tsunami-2004/