Guidance Notes
on Safer School
Construction
Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery
GFDRR Secretariat
1818 H Street NW
Washington, DC 20433, USA
Telephone:
202 458 0268
Facsimile:
202 522 3227
E-mail:
drm@worldbank.org
Web Site:
www.gfdrr.org
INEE Secretariat
c/o the International Rescue Committee
122 East 42nd Street, 14th floor
New York, NY 10168-1289
Telephone:
212 551 2720
Fax:
212 551 3185
Email:
info@ineesite.org
Web Site:
www.ineesite.org
2009
G
u
i
d
an
C
e
n
o
te
S
on Saf
e
r S
C
ho
ol C
on
S
tr
u
C
tion
Special thanks to the partners who support GFDRR’s work to protect livelihoods and
improve lives: Australia, Canada, Denmark, European Commission, Finland, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom,
UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, USAID Office of Foreign Disaster
Assistance, and the World Bank.
INEE would like to thank the World Bank, CIDA and Unbound Philanthropy for their financial
support to the initiative.
Global Facility for Disaster
Reduction and Recovery
The Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction were developed as collaboration between the Inter-
Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) and the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and
Recovery (GFDRR) at the World Bank, in partnership with the Coalition for Global School Safety and
Disaster Prevention Education, the IASC Education Cluster and the International Strategy for Disaster
Risk Reduction. INEE acknowledges the leading work of Darren Hertz, the consultant who facilitated the
development of these Guidance Notes; Sanjaya Bhatia representing GFDRR; and Allison Anderson and
Monica Garcia representing INEE.
In addition, hundreds of individuals and agencies contributed to this consultative process of workshops,
peer reviews and the sharing of good practices and lessons learned from tools and country-specific case
studies. In particular, the guidance and expertise of Garry De la Pomerai, James Lewis, Khizer Omer, and
Marla Petal, were instrumental. For a full list of acknowledgements, please see Appendix 3.
INEE is a global, open network of over 3,500 members working in 115 countries within a humanitarian
and development framework to ensure all persons the right to safe, quality education in emergencies,
disasters and recovery. www.ineesite.org
GFDRR is a partnership of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) system to support the
implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA). The GFDRR provides technical and financial
assistance to high risk low- and middle-income countries to mainstream disaster reduction in national
development strategies and plans to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The
World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The
World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors,
denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the
part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of
such boundaries.
The information and advice contained in this publication is provided as general guidance only. Every effort
has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information. This publication is not a substitute for specific
engineering advice. The World Bank, the Inter Agency Network for Education in Emergencies, and the
authors accept no liability.
Design: miki@ultradesigns.com
Cover photo: © Mats Lignell, Save the Children
Photo above: © The World Bank/Wu Zhiyi
Guidance Notes
on Safer School
Construction
Global Facility for Disaster
Reduction and Recovery
Table of Contents
Terminology: a chart of key terms ...................................................................................... iv
1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1
2. The Need for Safer Schools: Introduction, Objectives and Scope .................... 9
3. We CAN Build Safer Schools: Case Studies and Guiding Principles .............. 13
How safe are your schools? ........................................................................................ 18
4. Suggested steps towards safer school buildings ................................................... 19
4.1 Identifying Key Partners .................................................................................... 23
4.2 Determining risk .................................................................................................. 30
4.3 Defining Performance Objectives ................................................................... 38
4.4 Adopting Building Codes and Retrofit Standards ...................................... 42
4.5 Assessing a School site .................................................................................... 46
4.6 Assessing the Vulnerability of Existing School Buildings .......................... 54
4.7 Preparing a School or Retrofitting Design .................................................... 60
4.8 Assuring Quality of Construction and Retrofit Works ................................ 69
5. Basic Design Principles ............................................................................................... 75
5.1 Earthquakes .......................................................................................................... 77
5.2 Windstorms .......................................................................................................... 87
5.3 Flood ...................................................................................................................... 92
5.4 Landslide .............................................................................................................. 95
5.5 Wildfires ................................................................................................................ 97
6. Appendix 1. Rationale and Background to the Development of Guidance
Notes on Safer School Construction ....................................................................... 99
Appendix 2: Safe and Child Friendly School Buildings: A Save the
Children poster ............................................................................................................... 101
Appendix 3. Acknowledgements and Links to Additional Information,
List of Documents Consulted ...................................................................................... 102
TERMINOLOGY
Natural hazards are “Natural process or phenomenon that may cause loss of life, injury
or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and eco-
nomic disruption, or environmental damage” if we do not take measures to prevent these
impacts.
The term hazard event refers to the actual occurrence of a hazard. A hazard event may
or may not result in the loss of life or damage to human interests.
A disaster is a “serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving
widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which ex-
ceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources”.
Risk is the product of hazards over which we have no control and vulnerabilities and ca-
pacities over which we can exercise very good control.
Vulnerability is the characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset
that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard. A school is said to be ‘at-risk’
or ‘vulnerable’, when it is exposed to known hazards and is likely to be adversely affected
by the impact of those hazards if and when they occur.
Capacity is the combination of all the strengths, attributes and resources available within
a community, society or organization that can be used to achieve disaster reduction and
prevention. In this context, capacity refers to the knowledge, skills, human social and politi-
cal relationships that can be used to reduce vulnerabilities.
Mitigation refers to the process of the lessening or limiting of the adverse impacts of
hazards and related disasters.
Hazard (or Disaster) Resilience is the ability of a system, community or society ex-
posed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a
hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration
of its essential basic structures and functions.
Disaster Risk Reduction is the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through
systematic efforts to analyze and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through
reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise manage-
ment of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse events.
Preparedness is the knowledge and capacities developed by governments, professional
response and recovery organizations, communities and individuals to effectively anticipate,
respond to, and recover from, the impacts of likely, imminent or current hazard events or
conditions.
Page iv /
Prevention is the outright avoidance of adverse impacts of hazards and related disasters.
Responses is the provision of emergency services and public assistance during or imme-
diately after a disaster in order to save lives, reduce health impacts, ensure public safety
and meet the basic subsistence needs of the people affected.
Recovery is the restoration and improvement, where appropriate, of facilities, livelihoods
and living conditions of disaster-affected communities, including efforts to reduce disaster
risk factors.
Retrofit is the reinforcement or upgrading of existing structures to become more resistant
and resilient to the damaging effects of hazards.
The above definitions were cited from the United Nations International Strategy for Disas-
ter Reduction Terminology which “aims to promote common understanding and common
usage of disaster risk reduction concepts and to assist the disaster risk reduction efforts
of authorities, practitioners and the public”(UNISDR, 2009).
/ Page v
Worldwide, approximately 1.2 billion students are
enrolled in primary and secondary school; of these,
875 million school children live in high seismic
risk zones and hundreds of millions more face regular
flood, landslide, extreme wind and fire hazards.
Executive Summary
I
n January 2009, the Center for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters highlighted a
spike in the number of people killed in natural disasters: the 2008 death toll of 235,816
was more than three times the annual average of the previous eight years. Moreover, it
noted that the biggest losses, from Cyclone Nargis and the Sichuan earthquakes, could
have been substantially reduced had schools been built more disaster resilient. World-
wide, approximately 1.2 billion students are enrolled in primary and secondary school; of
these, 875 million school children live in high seismic risk zones and hundreds of millions
more face regular flood, landslide, extreme wind and fire hazards. Although these children
spend up to 50 percent of their waking hours in school facilities, all too often schools are
not constructed or maintained to be disaster resilient. The death of children and adults in
these schools causes irreplaceable loss to families, communities and countries and life-
long injury to millions of children around the world. The time to say NO MORE to these
preventable deaths is NOW; every new school must be constructed as a safer school and
existing unsafe schools must be retrofitted to be disaster resilient. The Education for All
(EFA) and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) will not be achieved without the con-
struction of safer and more disaster resilient education facilities.
The Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction present a framework of guiding prin-
ciples and general steps to develop a context-specific plan to address this critical gap to
reaching EFA and the MDGs through the disaster resilient construction and retrofitting of
school buildings. The guidance notes consist of four components:
General information and advocacy points
1.
(Sections 2-4) briefly address the
need and rationale for safer school buildings as well as the scope and intended
use of the Guidance Notes. They also feature several success stories and list a
number of essential guiding principles and strategies for overcoming common
challenges.
A series of suggested steps
2.
(Section 5) that highlight key points that should be
considered when planning a safer school construction and/or retrofitting initiative.
Each step describes the processes, notes important decision points, highlights
key issues or potential challenges, and suggests good practices, tools to facilitate
the actions, and references resources to guide the reader to more detailed and
context-specific information.
A compilation of basic design principles
3.
(Section 6) to identify some basic
requirements a school building must meet to provide a greater level of protection.
These principles are intended to facilitate a very basic understanding of the mea-
sures that can be taken to make a school building more resilient to hazard forces.
1
/ Page 1
A broad list of references to resources
4.
(Appendix 3) for more detailed, techni-
cal and context-specific information.
The Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction should be used by policymakers and
planners of local, regional and national government bodies and all other organizations in-
terested or engaged in enhancing the safety of school populations through improved haz-
ard resistant construction and retrofitting of schools buildings. They can be used to guide
discussion, planning and design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of school
construction and should be utilized to strengthen Education Sector Plans and to develop
National Action Plan for Safe Schools.
The guidance notes were developed through a consultative process involving hundreds
of experts and practitioners from around the world who provided suggestions drawn from
experience and sound research. In addition, the development involved an extensive vetting
process of existing materials, good practices and case studies on safer school construc-
tion. As a result, the suggestions contained within the guidance notes are drawn from a
wide variety of individuals and groups, including governments, donors, disaster manage-
ment organizations, engineers and architects, planners, construction managers, multilat-
eral organizations, UN agencies, NGOs, academic institutions and educators. This is an
evolving document that will be regularly revised to include new and appropriate research,
insights and practices, thereby maintaining its relevancy and usefulness. To provide feed-
back, please email: network@ineesite.org and GFDRR.
Executive Summary
1
Page 2 /
The Need for Safer Schools:
Introduction, Context and Scope
A
t a time when the frequency and magnitude of extreme climatic events is rising,
a growing number of the world’s school-going children are increasingly exposed
to earthquakes, wildfires, floods, cyclones, landslides and other natural hazards.
Where these events impact human settlement, the tolls taken on the lives of children, the
school infrastructure, and the educational opportunities for survivors are distressing. For
example:
The Sichuan earthquake (2008) killed more than 7,000 children in their schools
•
and an estimated 7,000 classrooms were destroyed.
The cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh (2007) destroyed 496 school buildings and dam-
•
aged 2,110 more.
The Super Typhoon Durian (2006) in the Philippines caused $20m USD damage
•
to school, including 90-100% of school buildings in three cities and 50-60% of
school buildings in two other cities.
The earthquake in Pakistan (2005) killed at least 17,000 students in schools and
•
seriously injured another 50,000, leaving many disabled and over 300,000 chil-
dren affected. Moreover 10,000 school buildings were destroyed; in some dis-
tricts 80% of schools were destroyed.
As these statistics demonstrate, non-disaster resilient schools not only kill and injure chil-
dren, but the damage to and/or destruction of the physical infrastructure is a great eco-
nomic loss for a country; the cost of reconstruction can be a substantial burden on the
economy. As highlighted within the World Bank’s Education Note on Building Schools,
putting all children worldwide in school by 2015 will constitute, collectively, the biggest
building project the world has ever seen. Some 10 million new classrooms will be built
in over 100 countries. The cost of achieving EFA is already much higher because of past
failures to maintain schools properly. Of the estimated $6 billion annual price tag for EFA
construction, $4 billion is to replace classrooms that are literally falling down (Theunynck,
2003). It is critical to get safer school construction right the first time around.
In addition to saving lives, sustaining economies and minimizing harm to students, teach-
ers and school personnel, safer school construction is urgent because:
If we are not making our contribution to keeping children alive,
and not holding others to account for their part,
what is the rest of our work about?
(Save the Children Child Survival Campaign)
/ Page 3
2
Page 4 /
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
2
Safer schools can minimize the disruption of education activities and thus provide
space for children’s learning and healthy development
Safer schools can be centers for community activities and constitute social infra-
structure that is critical in the fight against poverty, illiteracy and a disease free
world
Safer schools can be community centers to coordinate response and recovery
efforts in the aftermath of a disaster
Safer schools can serve as emergency shelters to protect not just the school
population but the community a school serves
Moreover, approaches to safer school construction and retrofit that engage the broader
community in the integration of new knowledge and the acquisition of disaster prevention
skills can have an impact that reaches beyond the school grounds and serve as a model for
safer construction and retrofit of homes, community health centers, and other public and
private buildings. Schools also provide a hub and learning place for an entire community.
Children are the quickest learners, and are able to not only integrate new knowledge into
their daily lives but also serve as the source of family and community knowledge on health
and safety behavior, which they carry home from school. Thus, making disaster preven-
tion a school focus, by empowering children and youth to understand the warning signs
of hazards and the measures that can be taken to reduce risks and prevent disasters, is a
crucial starting point for building the disaster resilience of an entire community.
Objectives and Scope of the Guidance Notes on Safer School
Construction
The institutionalization of guiding principles for the construction of more disaster resil-
ient schools has been identified by governments, international organizations, and school
communities as a critical need for reducing, and ideally preventing, the devastating con-
sequences of countless hazard events. Although there are many governments and or-
ganizations engaged in the construction, retrofit and repair of safer schools as well as
the production of knowledge based on experience and research, there is presently no
one reference point from which to easily navigate and obtain the appropriate technical
knowledge and valuable insights gained from similar initiatives around the world. There-
fore, the development and utilisation of these Guidance Notes on Safer School Construc-
tion, which articulate a series of recommendations and guide readers to more technical
and context-specific information, is an important first step in a global effort to ensure that
schools in hazard-prone regions are designed and built to best protect their inhabitants.
By making use of this knowledge to design new schools and rehabilitate existing schools,
we can ensure that our children’s learning environments become a safe haven rather than
a potential danger to their lives and our future.
The Need for Safer Schools: Introduction, Context and Scope
2
These Guidance Notes use as their foundation the INEE Minimum Standards for Edu-
cation in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction (2004) in which the
second and third standards for ‘Access and Learning Environment’ state that learning
environments should be “secure and promote the protection and mental and emotional
well-being of learners” and that education facilities be conducive to the physical well-being
of learners. The indicators for these standards further state that the learning structure and
site should be accessible to all, regardless of physical ability, “free of dangers that may
cause harm to learners, and be appropriate for the situation.
The Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction are not intended as a blueprint re-
sponse to safer school construction. As such they should be adapted to the local context,
and used as a platform for planning and implementing an appropriate response to safer
school construction.
Scope: This document specifically addresses the following hazards: earthquakes, storms,
floods, landslides, and wildfires. It focuses only on hazards that pose a threat to school
structures and hazards for which measures can be taken to help prevent a disaster.
The document does not address human-induced nor health or hygiene-related hazards.
While other hazards may not be addressed, the steps articulated for planning and
implementation should prove useful in other hazard environments.
/ Page 5
Page 6 /
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Hazard resilient school buildings are just one component of a safe school.
Other measures that are essential in reducing risk and creating
a child friendly learning environment are:
Ensuring that all individuals have access to safe and protective schools and that no individual is
denied access because of discrimination
Establishing community education committees and, within those committees, school disaster man-
agement committees
Training teachers and school administrators in disaster risk reduction and other essential skills
to promote learners’ physical and emotional well-being, and ensuring that instruction is learner-
centered, participatory and inclusive
Building prevention into systems through creating school preparedness and evacuation plans
Identifying early warning systems and panning for school continuity in the event of a hazard
Integrating disaster risk reduction themes into the formal curriculum
Learning and practicing effective response procedures through, for example, safety drills
For further information please see the companion volume: Disaster Prevention for Schools: Guidance
for Education Sector Decision-Makers (http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/trainings-
events/edu-materials/v.php?id=7344) and the INEE Minimum Standards (http://www.ineesite.org/
standards)
These guidance notes do not directly address all of the means of reducing a school’s risk. Neverthe-
less, it is imperative to understand that without addressing these additional components, a school and
its learners remain unnecessarily vulnerable.
We CAN make school buildings safer:
Case Studies and Guiding Principles
The following examples from case studies on safer school construction highlight the fact
that safer school construction IS achievable and critical:
Sangzao Middle School – Sichuan Province
The students lined up row by row on the outdoor basketball courts of Sangzao Middle
School in the minutes after the earthquake. When the head count was complete, their
fate was clear: all 2,323 were alive. Just 20 miles north, the collapse of Beichuan Middle
School buried 1,000 students and teachers.
Mr. Ye Zhiping started working at the school 30 years ago as an English teacher and has
taught in every classroom and became the school principal in 1996.
Nervous about the shoddiness of the main school building, Mr. Ye pestered county officials
for money. Eventually the education department gave $58,000. It was a troublesome pro-
cess because the county was poor and thus tight with money, Mr. Ye said, but officials saw
the need to ensure the safety of children. He had workers widen concrete pillars and insert
iron rods into them. He demanded stronger balcony railings. He demolished a bathroom
whose pipes had been weakened by water. Each classroom had four rectangular pillars
that were thickened so they jutted from the walls. Up and down the pillars, workers drilled
holes and inserted iron reinforcing rods because the original ones were not enough, Mr. Ye
said. The concrete slab floors were secured to be able to withstand intense shaking.
Mr. Ye not only shored up the building’s structure, but also had students and teachers
prepare for a disaster. They rehearsed an emergency evacuation plan twice a year. Be-
cause of that, students and teachers say, everyone managed to [evacuate] in less than
two minutes.
Excerpts from: Wong, E. (2008, June 16). How Angel of Sichuan Saved School in
Quake. The New York Times
“One of the few buildings still standing after the Nura village earthquake in South Kyr-
gyzstan on 6 October 2008, which killed 75 people, was the public school, designed
and constructed by the Kyrgyz Scientific Research and Design Institute of Seismic
Construction” —Excerpts from: European Commission Humanitarian Aid Department
Press Release
/ Page 7
3
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
3
Page 8 /
Madagascar “Shock Response” Fund
By means of a government development fund, 2,041 cyclone-resistant school buildings
in Madagascar have been constructed or retrofit to withstand cyclone winds of up to
250 km/hour. The International Development Fund IV (FID IV) project “emerged in mid-
2004 after two strong cyclones (Gafilo and Elita) struck the country’s East and West
coasts, damaging 3,400 schools--of which 1,420 were completely destroyed—and leaving
more than 200,000 people without shelter. Under a FID IV Project component known as
‘Shock Response’, school buildings and primary health centres are built or retrofitted using
cyclone-resistant construction codes”.
“The success of the FID IV project relies entirely on the leadership, management and
ownership of the local community. A local association is formed by community members
who submit a formal funding request to the FID for the construction or rehabilitation of a
public building”.
“Upon approval of the request, a “project manager” status is conferred on the commu-
nity members’/parents’ association to supervise the administrative, technical, financial and
business-related aspects of the development of the building including the design, con-
struction codes, tender, selection of contractors/sub-contractors, business negotiations,
follow-up, and completion of work”.
“After construction is completed, the local association also takes full responsibility of
maintaining and administering the building.”
Excerpts from: http://www.unisdr.org/eng/public_aware/world_camp/2006-2007/pdf/
case-study-madagascar-en.pdf
GuIDING PRINCIPLES
There are many challenges to realizing safer school construction. Chief among them is in-
adequate existing infrastructure in many hazard-prone areas and the lack of clearly-defined
responsibilities and accountability mechanisms. This is complicated by a limited political
will and resource allocation, which are often stretched thinly across a variety of other ob-
jectives. In such cases, arguments for investment in additional infrastructure may garner
little support. Additionally, when hazard events occur less frequently, the urgency to take
precautionary measures may quickly diminish. Finally, the unique context of each school,
and consequently, the unique set of factors which must be considered to mitigate loss and
damage, is a challenge. Hazard characteristics may differ by type, intensity, and frequency.
The vulnerabilities and capacities of schools and communities will differ. Considering
these variables, a one-size fits all approach is not only ineffective, but at worst, may be
counter-productive and even harmful.
3
We CAN make school buildings safer: Case Studies and Guiding Principles
3
/ Page 9
Despite these challenges, there are financially feasible and sustainable strategies that
the international community must take up in order to realize safer school construction.
Included here are several principles derived from the successes and failures of efforts to
increase the safety of schools across the globe. Practical strategies and case studies,
based on these principles, will appear throughout the steps outlined in these guidance
notes. The seven basic guiding principles proposed here are:
Raising awareness
Fostering community ownership
Cultivating innovation
Encouraging leadership
Evaluating the process for improving practice
Assuring quality
Continuing Assessment
Raising awareness
“Education, knowledge and awareness are critical to building the ability to reduce losses
from natural hazards, as well as the capacity to respond to and recover effectively from
extreme natural events when they do, inevitably, occur” (Wisner, 2006). Creating and
maintaining a safe learning environment means sharing knowledge about hazards, their
potentially damaging effects, and most importantly, what we can do about them. With the
assistance of science and engineering and the essential knowledge a community pos-
sesses, simple and effective measures can be taken to make school buildings safer. Every
stage of the process of making schools safer is an opportunity for teaching and learning
and anyone with the appropriate knowledge, from a primary school student to the highest
state official, can contribute.
Fostering community ownership
For a hazard resilient school building to meet its potential to mitigate damage and loss,
its community must understand the risk that hazards pose and the building’s capacity to
reduce that risk. Fostering a sense of ownership by the individuals and groups who use
and maintain the building will help ensure its protective capacity is sustained throughout
its years of use.
If these individuals are to feel a sense of ownership of the building, they must be delegated
an active decision-making role in the assessment, design, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of the initiative.
Ownership should be fostered not just within the school community, but with all involved
partners. When partnerships lead to mutual benefit and all parties involved see their own
needs being met, sustainable collaborations are formed.
Page 10 /
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
3
Assuring quality
Although hazard resilient buildings need not be overly complex, adherence to the precise
technical requirements which make them safer is essential. Oversight or disregard of
these requirements can quickly jeopardize the future safety of the school population. Giv-
ing due attention to the engagement of engineers qualified to advise on hazard resilience
and to all planning/engineering-related requirements will help ensure the building meets
its intended safety objective.
Cultivating innovation – minimizing cost and maximizing resources
Innovation is the process of creating a new solution to a problem given a set of constraints,
resources and capacities. Cultivating innovation means shifting the overall outlook from a
focus on how something should be accomplished to how many different ways might it
be accomplished?
To cultivate innovation within a group:
Include a broad range of individuals in planning activities
Actively search out new knowledge to share with the group
Encourage the expression of even the least feasible suggestions – innovation will
most commonly arise from piecing together a number of different suggestions.
Good innovations are simple, realizable and build on existing knowledge and resources.
It is important to note that the many efforts have been made to integrate appropri-
ate technologies into school construction. When these innovative practices were
foreign and complex, the necessary technical support to design, construct and maintain
buildings most often resulted in high costs and poor sustainability.
PERu—Stronger Bricks for Earthquake Resistant Construction
“In Peru, Mujeres Unidas para un Pueblo Mejor developed techniques for constructing
more earthquake-resistant bricks using inexpensive local materials (with support from the
NGO Estrategia). Producing these bricks is an income generating enterprise for women
who built affordable, earthquake resistant houses in a 20 home pilot some years ago.
They have sold bricks to municipal government in recent years for use in public facilities.
Although they have been sharing the technique with local communities in and outside of
Peru through peer exchanges over time, it took the 2007 earthquake to get the govern-
ment’s attention on how they could support building affordable, safe houses in informal
settlements using anti-seismic bricks produced by grassroots women’s enterprises”.
Source: http://www.disasterwatch.net/resources/recipesforresilience.pdf
/ Page 11
We CAN make school buildings safer: Case Studies and Guiding Principles
3
Encouraging leadership
Leaders represent the path by which social change occurs. Be it within a community or
the government, these are the individuals who facilitate the consideration of new perspec-
tives and motivate change in social values and corresponding behaviors. In school com-
munities, principles are often the pivotal leaders. However, leaders are not always those
who are technical experts, or those who hold formalized leadership roles. In the case of a
school in The Philippines, it was students who provided the leadership necessary to create
a safer learning environment (see adjoining case study).
To encourage leadership at any level:
Search out respected individuals capable of motivating change
Work towards a shared understanding of the need for safer schools. If this is ac-
complished,
Collaboratively identify how best to plan for change, and
Support their role in doing so.
Evaluating the process to improve practice
Regular monitoring of the evolving needs of the population as well as the extent to which
the initiative meets those needs will allow the initiative to remain relevant and responsive.
A systematic and impartial evaluation of the initiative that includes all involved, will allow
for improved practice and enhanced accountability. Information collected impartially and
transparently and shared with others from the local to the national and international com-
munity can benefit future safer school construction advocacy, programs and policies. Criti-
cal factors for success are:
realistic and practical planning with clear aims and objectives;
adequate resources allocated to monitoring and evaluation within planning;
PHILIPPINES—Students lead campaign to relocate their school
After their school was spared from a mudslide, the students in Santa Paz, Southern Leyte,
led by their 16 year old school president, Honey, initiated a writing campaign to lobby for
the relocation of their school. In spite of the construction of a concrete wall and drainage
ditches they consulted with hazard specialists and found that their school was intolerably
vulnerable. With the help of a sympathetic former governor, the students convinced local
authorities to relocate their school in spite of the protests of many of the adults of Santa
Paz. They are now in a new school that is designed to resist earthquakes and serve as a
community shelter.
Source: http://www.plan-uk.org/pdfs/childrenindrr.pdf
Page 12 /
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
3
the involvement of all key partners;
the identification and selection of relevant indicators that demonstrate impact as
well as cause-effect relationships and outcomes; and
the application of lessons learnt to improve practice and policy.
Continuing Assessment
The risk to a school and its occupants is a function of many factors. Environmental change
and land use practices can intensify the hazard risks in a particular location. Risk is equally
influenced by our understanding of hazards and our capacity to mitigate the damage and
loss they may cause. As these factors are all dynamic, a school communitys risk too, is
dynamic. Making a school a safer place means working with its community to identify
ways to continue monitoring the known hazards, maintaining the protective capacity of the
school buildings, and learning new ways to reduce their risk.
HOW SAFE ARE YOUR SCHOOLS?
Have all natural hazards posing a threat to schools been identified?
•
How often are these risks reassessed?
•
Are the school population and the local community aware of the risk?
•
Were the school buildings designed to meet building code standards?
•
Who designed the schools?
•
Did (Does) the building code provide guidance on hazard resilient design?
•
Was the soil tested before the school was built?
•
Were builders trained to apply hazard-resilient techniques?
•
Was the school construction supervised by a qualified engineer?
•
Who is responsible for managing the school maintenance program? Are
•
mechanisms in place to ensure school maintenance is financed and executed?
Do natural hazard events regularly create disruptions in the school calendar? Is
•
there a backup plan to ensure that school operations continue?
Are school furnishings and equipment designed and installed to minimize potential
•
harm they might cause to school occupants?
Do students, teachers, staff, and school administrators know what to do before,
•
during and after a hazard event?
Has a safe location been identified if the school must be evacuated? Is the
•
passage to that location also safe?
Does a disaster management committee exist in the school or the local
•
community?
During a hazard event, does the school serve as a shelter? Has it been designed
•
to do so?
Are the school population and local community aware of how they can reduce
•
their vulnerability to the damaging impacts of a hazard event? Are they actively
taking measures to do so?
/ Page 13
Suggested steps towards greater safety
of school buildings
W
hen thousands of existing schools may be unsafe and more potentially unsafe
schools are being built every day, how does one identify where to begin? In-
corporating hazard-resilient features into new school buildings can be done in-
expensively if careful attention is given to ensure effective design and construction. A joint
UNDP-Government of Uttar Pradesh, India safer school initiative found that the construc-
tion of a new hazard resilient school cost only 8% more than a school built to non-hazard
resilient standards (Bhatia, 2008). With such a minimal added investment, ensuring that
future schools are built to hazard-resilient standards is a suggested first priority.
Yet the schools at greatest risk are those existing schools whose buildings were not de-
signed to resist the damaging effects of hazards and that host hundreds of thousands
of school children throughout the year. Enhancing the hazard resilience of a potentially
large quantity of existing schools can be a time-consuming effort, but by prioritizing those
schools at greatest risk, assuring quality in design and implementation, and engaging the
community throughout the process, retrofitting efforts can achieve excellent and cost-
efficient results. Between 2007 and 2008, the Istanbul Seismic Risk Mitigation and Emer-
gency Preparedness (ISMEP) Turkey, retrofit 364 schools and reconstructed 106 others.
The cost of retrofitting small and medium-sized school buildings was only 10-15% of the
cost to replace the building (Miyamoto).
Figure 1: DJ Primary/Community Based High School, Hasis, Pakistan – Before and after
seismic retrofit
Photo Courtesy and copyright of Aga Khan Building and Planning Service, Pakistan
4
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 14 /
A note on the overall project approach
Political will, existing infrastructure, technical capacity, availability of resources, and project
scale are all factors which will influence the approach you choose. The suggested steps
outlined here attempt to provide guidance regardless of the approach taken.
Yet, several key enabling factors have been observed in successful and sustainable ap-
proaches.
School communities understand their risk, and the extent to which a hazard resil-
ient school can reduce that risk.
School communities play a major decision-making role throughout the various
steps of the project.
Care is taken to foster an on-going dialog of mutual learning and understanding
between project engineers and the school communities.
Rigorous attention is paid to the technical requirements of the assessment, de-
sign, and construction/retrofitting supervision.
The final new school or retrofitting design is simple, builds on local building capac-
ity and materials, and can be maintained inexpensively by the school community.
Education and awareness-raising are components of each and every activity.
Community driven development – One approach
Research on school construction throughout Africa and many Asian countries has shown that
one of the most cost-efficient and effective approaches to school construction is a community-
driven development (CDD) approach. In CDD, the community manages the school construc-
tion, provides and contracts work to the local builders, and receives support and resources
from the Ministry/Department of Education and local government (Theunynck, 2008).
Although this research does not specifically address hazard resilient school construction
or retrofitting, the approach, when accompanied with strong training and awareness-rais-
ing efforts, has been employed successfully by governments and NGOs in hazard prone
countries such as the Philippines, India, Madagascar and Pakistan.
In the majority of these cases, the project initiators provide the technical engineering
capacity for the assessment, design, and supervision/inspection of works. Funding is
commonly allocated to the community management body in installments. The completed
project, upon approval of a quality inspection team and all other parties, is turned over to
the community, who is responsible for the school building and its maintenance.
Besides overall effectiveness, properly-implemented community-driven approaches have
additional benefits:
They benefit local economies
Community ownership of the process helps to ensure the maintenance of the new
safer learning environment.
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 15
New capacities are developed within the community which can be applied to resi-
dences and other buildings.
One notable challenge is that when larger, more complex school facilities are constructed
that requirie multiple contractors to provide a variety of services, the project may require
professional contract management services. In such cases, the approach must be adapt-
ed or another approach adopted.
An overview of the suggested steps
The following suggested steps provide guidance on both the construction of new hazard-
resilient schools and the retrofitting of existing schools to higher safety levels. The majority
of the steps apply to both new construction and retrofitting. However, as these processes
differ at various stages of the project, certain steps or guidance within a step may apply
solely to the case of new construction or of retrofitting. Where this occurs, a note will be
made to indicate which case is being addressed.
The guidance notes propose eight steps.
Identifying key partners
1.
– Who can contribute to the initiative?
Determining risk
2.
– What hazards pose a risk to existing and prospective schools
and where is that risk the greatest?
Defining performance objectives
3.
– How do you determine the maximum
amount of damage or disruption that can be tolerated? What level of hazard resil-
ience should schools be designed to meet?
Adopting building codes and retrofit guidelines
4.
– What guidance and stan-
dards exist to ensure a new school or retrofitting plan can meet the performance
objectives?
PHILIPPINES—Principal-led school building program
In the Philippines, the Department of Education (DepED) adopted the Principal-Led
School Building Program approach, wherein principals or school heads take charge of the
implementation management of the repair and / or construction. Assessment, design, and
inspection functions are provided by the DepED engineers, who also assist the Principal
during the procurement processes. The Parent Teacher & Community Association (PTCA)
and other stakeholders in the community are responsible to audit all procurements. With
support from AusAid, 40 classrooms were retrofit to resist typhoons using this approach.
Complementing the retrofitting works, training is provided to teachers, students and staff
and disaster management is integrated into the school curriculum.
Source: http://www.adpc.net/v2007/Programs/DMS/PROGRAMS/Mainstreaming%20DRR/Downloads/
Philippines.pdf
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 16 /
Assessing a school site
5.
– What makes a site more or less vulnerable to haz-
ards? What other hazards pose a risk? Are there any conditions that make a site
particularly vulnerable? How are local buildings constructed? What materials
and skilled resources are locally available?
Assessing vulnerability of existing school buildings
6.
– What are the con-
ditions of the existing school? Should it be retrofit or rebuilt? What measures
might be taken to strengthen the building? How can the school community be
involved?
Preparing a new school design or retrofitting plan
7.
– What are the design
considerations for a new school or retrofitting plan? Who should be involved in
the design process? What tradeoffs might need to be made? Are there any
special considerations when retrofitting a school?
Assuring the quality of work and maintenance
8.
– What are some strategies
for developing a transparent construction project? What are some approaches to
training builders to use hazard resilient techniques and materials? What mecha-
nisms can be adopted to encourage compliance to the hazard resilient design?
What should be considered when setting up a maintenance program?
The steps correspond to the assessment, planning, and implementation processes illus-
trated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Safer School Steps and Corresponding Process Flow Diagram
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 17
The discussion of each step begins by defining the objective of the step, stating its pur-
pose within the overall process, and noting how it relates to other steps. The guidance
provided for the planning of each step is also organized into three sections:
Introduction
Defines new concepts and/or provides general notes on the
step as a whole
How do you do it?
Describes the processes, notes important criteria for decision-
making, highlights key issues or potential challenges, suggests
good practices, and references tools to facilitate the process.
Key points to consider Identifies enabling factors, strategies corresponding to the guid-
ing principles outlined in Section 3, and any further consider-
ations based on the experience of other safer school initiatives.
Although the steps have been organized sequentially, many of the activities can be con-
ducted simultaneously.
4.1 IDENTIFYING kEY PARTNERS
What is the objective
of this step?
To identify potential collaborators who can contribute to a safer schools
initiative, and form a coordinating group to lead the initiative.
What is the purpose?
To create a network of collaborators that can provide the leadership
and resources to ensure that existing and future schools are safer
places.
How does this step
relate to others?
The partners identified in this step will play various roles in planning,
implementing, and evaluating all the proceeding steps.
4.1.1 Introduction
No single entity possesses all of the skills, knowledge and experience necessary for the
effective design, construction, retrofit, use and maintenance of a school. Creating and
maintaining a positive learning environment requires project managers, engineers, ar-
chitects, school administration, teachers, students and community leaders, and a skilled
workforce at a minimum.
Where schools are created to resist hazard forces, new knowledge and skills must be
shared with all of these entities; thus, advocates, communications experts, and trainers all
have a role to play in creating safer schools.
Additionally, there are many other entities sharing similar objectives that can make valuable
contributions to the process.
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 18 /
The process of creating safer schools begins with identifying those potential partners and
allies who together can ensure that school buildings serve to protect their occupants and
prevent potential disasters.
4.1.2 How do you do it?
1. Locate potential partners possessing the necessary skills, knowledge
and resources
School construction, most commonly, is the ultimate responsibility of one or several
government departments who may undertake the work or contract it to non-governmental
sources. Understanding the existing mechanisms and determining 1) who is responsible
for what, 2) to whom are they accountable, and 3) how the accountability is enforced is a
strong starting point for identifying potential collaborators. Table 1 provides a list of sample
governmental and non-governmental bodies that may play a role in hazard resistant school
construction, retrofitting and maintenance.
Table 1: Sample Government and Non-government bodies involved in school
construction
Component
Governmental bodies:
Non-governmental bodies
Hazard
assessment
National or local emergency or
disaster management agencies,
Scientific and technical research
institutes, Universities
Private consultancy firms
Building code
enactment
National, state, or provincial ministry/
departments of public works,
architecture and construction,
municipal affairs and housing
Building industry entities, building
product manufacturers
Building code
enforcement
National, regional, or local
government
Independent code enforcement bod-
ies, testing laboratories
Design and
construction of
schools
Ministry/department of education,
public works; regional or local gov-
ernment
Private school owners, Materials
suppliers, construction companies,
local builders, professional
engineering, architecture, and
building associations
Maintenance
School district, schools
Community
Provision or
acquisition of
school site
District or local government
Community
Land use
planning
Ministry/department of planning or
urban and rural development. Town
and Country Planning Department,
Development Authority
Urban and rural planning
organizations, Planning professional
associations
Financing
Ministry/department of education or
finance, planning Commission, pro-
gram coordination unit
Donor organizations, NGOs, INGOs,
regional banks and other lenders
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 19
Component
Governmental bodies:
Non-governmental bodies
School
administration
Ministry/department of education,
local school boards or school
districts,
School administrators associations,
local school management
committees
School –
Community
relations
Ministry or department of education,
school boards or districts
Local schools, community-based
organizations, NGOs, Parent/
Student/Teacher associations
Materials supply
Private sector businesses, NGOs,
donor-organizations, communities
Where new knowledge and methods exist to strengthen a building’s ability to resist haz-
ards, skills training and awareness raising will help to cultivate an understanding of haz-
ards, risk and the capacity to reduce risk. Table 2 lists several sample partners who might
provide skills training and conduct awareness-raising activities.
Table 2: Sample Training and Awareness-Raising Partners
Component
Governmental Bodies
Non-governmental bodies
Training provision
for skilled
and unskilled
workforce
Ministry/department of vocational and
technical training
Trade unions/associations, technical/
vocational schools, NGOs, structural
engineers, disaster management
organizations, private sector
companies
Training provision
and certification
of engineers and
architects
Ministries /Departments of Education
or Human Resource Development,
National Disaster Management Orga-
nizations
University degree programs,
professional associations of
engineers or architects, private
sector companies
Awareness-
raising
(local-level)
School district, or local government
officials
Existing experts within the
community, disaster management
organizations, NGOs, CBOs, local
media, students and teachers
Awareness-
raising (national-
level)
Ministry/department of education
National media, NGOs,
Other individuals and groups, not typically associated with school construction, may share
similar motivations, needs, or objectives. Some examples are:
Industries concerned with protecting valuable assets may share valuable hazard
assessment data (eg. Insurance companies)
Informed teacher unions can help garner support of teachers and advocate for
larger-scale change.
Trade associations may assist by identifying current building practices and materi-
als and providing skills training.
Micro-lending bodies that couple loans with skills development training.
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 20 /
2. Conduct a stakeholder analysis
Each context will have its own set of actors with varying levels of engagement
and interests. Several questions may help to identify other partners who can assist in
providing information and resources, implementing activities, and ensuring the sustain-
ability of the initiative:
Who might share similar objectives, motivations, or needs?
Who is already engaged in disaster risk reduction in the education sector and
elsewhere?
What leaders exist amongst those involved?
Who else might benefit from more hazard-resilient schools?
Who might be negatively impacted or mobilize against efforts to create more haz-
ard-resilient schools?
The use of a stakeholder analysis tool such as the one illustrated here may facilitate the
identification and analysis of these potential partners and the roles they may play.
Potential
Stakeholder/
Partner
How are they
involved?
What
impact might
they have?
+/-
How
interested/
motivated
are they?
+/-
What
can the
stakeholder
provide?
What
perceived
attitudes or
risks may
be associated
with
stakeholder?
What
responsibilities
might they hold?
Adapted from: (Zeynep Turkmen. ProVention
Consortium ECA Coordinator/BU CENDIM)
A thorough analysis will also prove helpful in forming a communications and knowledge
management strategy that effectively delivers relevant information to decision-makers, im-
plementers, advocates, and other partners at all levels. Likewise, it can serve to identify
awareness-raising and capacity-building within the network of partners.
Partner Relationships
Don’t forget to give attention to the existing and prospective relationships among the po-
tential partners. A network of partners functions well when the internal relationships are
strong and generative. One noted challenge for many initiatives is establishing a strong
learning relationship between engineers and school communities. The quality of this
relationship is essential, in which technical processes and requirements are clearly under-
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 21
stood by the school community and important functional requirements and valuable local
information is effectively shared with engineers.
3. Set up a coordinating group
It is not within the scope of this document to provide detailed guidance on setting up a
coordination group. However experience suggests that the inclusion of certain key part-
ners can greatly influence the effectiveness and sustainability of a safer school initiative.
School communities, qualified structural engineers, disaster risk management organiza-
tions, and relevant government bodies are featured based on their required expertise, ex-
isting involvement in the school construction process and their potential role in sustaining
these efforts.
School communities
Schools, and the communities which they serve, are the direct beneficiaries of hazard-
resilient school construction and retrofitting.
School communities consist of:
Students
•
Administrators
•
Local leaders
•
Existing management
•
committees
Teachers
•
Staff
•
Local businesses
•
Community disaster
•
management organizations
Parents
•
Neighbors
•
Local builders
•
The potential damages and losses due to a hazard event are damages to their interests,
and loss of their lives. School communities that understand the increased risk posed by
unsafe schools and are actively engaged in reducing that risk can make extensive contri-
butions by:
Conducting assessment activities such as community-led vulnerability and capac-
ity mapping
Informing school design considerations such as locally available building materi-
als
Identifying local expertise
Managing the procurement and construction process
Conducting quality audits during the construction or retrofitting work
Ensuring sustained maintenance of new or retrofitted school structures
Making the school design, construction, and retrofit process into a permanent
learning experience for the school and broader community
Sharing knowledge and experience with neighboring school communities
Advocating for large scale institutional change
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 22 /
Qualified engineers
The technical expertise of qualified engineers is required throughout each stage of the
construction or retrofit of a school. Civil/structural engineers determine how various forc-
es will affect a building and what is required for a building to resist these often powerful
forces. Although engineers can be contracted to provide services as needed, it is advis-
able that at least one play a more permanent role within the coordinating body. The ser-
vices of a competent structural engineer with a specialization or considerable experience
in designing hazard resistant structures will:
Help determine the extent and accuracy of assessment required.
Approve a suitable site for school construction
Conduct building assessments of existing schools
Inform on technical feasibility and cost of retrofitting schools
Provide guidance on the identification of appropriate building codes and retrofit-
ting guidelines
Approve the use of particular building materials
Design a functional/structural plan for the construction or retrofitting of a school
Approve architectural plan for new school construction
Supervise construction or retrofitting implementation
Existing disaster management organizations
From the international to the local level, disaster management organizations coordinate ef-
forts and provide policy guidance on mitigation, preparedness, response, and reconstruc-
tion. Partnering with these entities will help to situate hazard resilient school buildings in
the broader scope of school readiness, response and recovery. Existing disaster manage-
ment institutions can assist by:
Establishing necessary linkages for sharing information and working together
across, education, construction and risk reduction sectors
Advocating for hazard resilient school construction and retrofitting policies at ap-
propriate governmental levels.
Organizing local regional or national training and awareness raising activities on
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 23
the value of hazard resilient construction and retrofit
Locating and analyzing existing hazard, vulnerability, capacity, and prior damage
assessment data
Providing technical expertise for safe infrastructure design and construction
Identifying leadership capacity or change agents
In addition, data, resources, challenges and successes during the project should be
shared with disaster management organizations to further enhance their knowledge and
capacity.
Relevant line ministry/department representatives and others partners
Planning, design, regulation and enforcement mechanisms are most commonly the ulti-
mate responsibility of various government entities. Their representation:
Enhances government-wide acceptability of the strategic plan, and allocation of
resources.
Helps establish an accurate assessment of the effectiveness of relevant existing
mechanisms. These mechanisms, where effective, should be utilized.
Creates opportunity for awareness-raising of cross-cutting disaster risk reduction
issues that require the collaboration of multiple departments at multiple levels.
Creates capacity building opportunities vital to mainstreaming disaster risk reduc-
tion measures in the education sector.
Forms a base from which to advocate for a nationally-recognized platform, if one
does not already exist.
Please see Appendix 3 for references on planning DRR projects
4.1.3 key Points to consider
Involvement of key and relevant partners, who have a stake in the education sec-
tor, provides positive synergy to the endeavor. A primary achievement of broad
based involvement is the consequent sharing of information with all involved. It
has been observed that greater involvement of stakeholders ensures enhanced
transparency in the construction of schools.
Engineering capacity – Most structural engineering schools and programs do not
require the study of hazard resistant structural design. Identifying engineers with ed-
ucation and experience in assessment and design of hazard resilient buildings is es-
sential to improving school safety. If it is necessary to engage international experts,
pairing local and national engineers with these experts can build local engineering
capacity. Training programs designed to educate a larger number of engineers are
most effective when they include extensive hands-on learning activities.
Please see Appendix 3 for references to resources engineer training
and sample terms of reference
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 24 /
Fostering leadership – School and community leaders can help identify local
organizations to formalize the school community’s role throughout the process.
Valuable leadership may be found in existing school boards, school management
committees, community or school disaster management committees, and parent
teacher student associations.
If private and religious schools are to be addressed, a different approach may be
required. One strategy is to establish incentive programs for private school own-
ers that encourage hazard resistant construction and retrofitting.
4.2 DETERMINING RISk
What is the objective
of this step?
To calculate an approximate measure of risk within a given geographical
area in order to 1) identify where prospective new and existing schools
will require more hazard-resilient features and 2) determine those existing
schools in need of urgent intervention.
What is the purpose?
In order to focus efforts on preventing disasters rather than responding
to them, it is necessary to estimate the potential damaging consequenc-
es and expected losses when an extreme event, such as a flood or earth-
quake, impacts a prospective or existing school population. Determining
a measure of risk for a given geographical area will allow you to:
Identify those schools which are at greatest risk of damage, harm
and loss and set priorities for action.
Create a basis for conducting more detailed site and building as-
sessments.
Develop programs and policies to execute these measures in the
immediate and long-term.
How does this step
relate to others?
This step introduces hazard and vulnerability assessments at a macro-
level.
Step 4.5 discusses the more detailed hazard and vulnerability assess-
ment necessary to selecta site for new school construction.
Step 4.6 discusses the more detailed vulnerability (structural and site)
assessment of existing school buildings to determine whether a building
should be retrofit and what retrofitting measures can be implemented.
4.2.1 Introduction
What is risk assessment?
Risk assessment, or risk analysis, is the process of answering the question, What would
happen if a hazard event occurred? What would be the consequences of the event in
terms of lives, health, Infrastructure and/or the ongoing school operations? Risk assess-
ment estimates the nature and extent of risk by:
Analyzing the potential hazards a school faces (
Hazard Assessment),
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 25
Identifying the school assets and determining their value.
Evaluating the conditions which make a school population and valuable school
services and assets more or less susceptible to the potential impacts of a hazard
(Vulnerability Assessment).
What is hazard assessment?
Hazard assessment is the process of estimating 1) the likelihood of hazard events within a
specific period of time, 2) and the intensity of these occurrences for a given geographical
area.
What is vulnerability assessment?
Vulnerability assessment is the investigation into the characteristics and circumstances of
a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard.
A vulnerability assessment poses such questions as:
How well would existing structures protect the lives and assets of the
school?
What are prevalent perceptions of a hazard and what can be done to
mitigate risk?
How has the community responded to past disasters and what indigenous
mechanisms are in place to mitigate damage and loss?
What are some approaches to assessing risk?
There are several approaches to estimating risk. Two of the more common approaches
are:
Probabilistic assessments, which consider past statistics and historical informa-
tion to estimate the likelihood of a hazard event of a given magnitude.
Deterministic assessments, which rely on scientific understanding of the hazard in
a given area to establish a worst-case event.
As risk assessment attempts to measure what might happen, there will always be a degree
of uncertainty. Therefore a combined approach is often preferable. When insufficient data
exists to determine risk using a probabilistic approach, it may be necessary to deterministi-
cally assess a worse-case event.
Please see Appendix 3 for references on resources on risk assessment
What are risk, hazard and vulnerability maps?
The map is a common and effective tool for representing the results of risk, hazard, and
vulnerability assessments. Maps allow you to establish geographically 1) the frequency/
Hazard
Vulnerability
Risk
X
=
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 26 /
probability of hazards of various magnitudes or durations, 2) the schools which are ex-
posed to these hazards and 3) the estimated vulnerability of these schools. There are
several benefits to using maps to represent risk data:
Hazard, vulnerability (e.g. building types and ages), and school location data can be overlaid on
the map to help estimate the risk levels of different areas
The clear visual representation of data, if kept simple, facilitates analysis and decision-making
Maps are easily adaptable for public awareness and other educational purposes
Maps of any scale (e.g. national, regional, local) and level of detail can be created based on
intended use.
Please see Appendix 3 for references on resources on risk,
hazard, and vulnerability mapping
4.2.2 How do you do it?
1. Identify hazards and their characteristics at a macro-level.
A. What hazard data is needed?
The very first task is to determine which hazards affect the school(s) in the geographic area
under consideration. In many areas, a school may be exposed to more than one hazard.
For example, a coastal region prone to cyclones may also experience flooding due to storm
surge and a school built on the slope of a mountain in a seismically active area, may be
exposed to landslides.
It is important to identify and assess each of the potential hazards. The
most recent hazard event may not be the hazard which poses the most
immediate or greatest danger
For each hazard, you will need to determine these four main variables:
Magnitude
1.
Duration
2.
Likelihood of occurrence
3.
Affected Area
4.
B. Where can you find existing hazard studies?
An ever-growing amount of data at global, national and sub-national levels is being collect-
ed with the advent of GIS systems, modeling software, and satellite imagery. Much of this
data is publicly available. A good place to begin the search is with any national, regional
or local disaster management organizations. Research institutes that study geological or
hydro-meteorological processes and professional scientific and engineering associations
are also likely to possess the hazard data you require.
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 27
If the data you need is not available from a single national, sub-national or local government
source, other sources such as the health or industrial sectors, may have conducted hazard
studies to better protect critical facilities such as hospitals or refineries. One question to
pose is, “Who else might have valuable assets or structures exposed to hazards?”
Following is a list of other potential sources of existing hazard studies.
Land use planning
agencies
Insurance companies
Meteorological
Department
Structural engineers
Architects
Fire Department
Environmental engineers
Universities worldwide
Geotechnical Agencies
Public works departments
Media records
Hospital industry
Government records
Private schools
Ministry of Education
Ministry of Interior / Home
Industrial sector
NGOs and INGOs
Agricultural Sector
Health Sector
Private Risk Management
Consultancy Firms
A growing amount of data, collected internationally, is publicly available. The Global Seis-
mic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP) and the Natural Hazards Assessment Net-
work (NATHAN) are two examples of international hazard data and maps accessible via
the internet. Online disaster databases, such as EM-DAT , inTERRAgate, and DesInven-
tar, collect measures and records of past disasters for analysis.
Please see Appendix 3 for references to hazard data resources
C. How to organize the data
Existing hazard assessment studies may come in various formats, scales, and units of mea-
surement. Compiling the data into a standard format of uniform scale and a standard unit
of measurement will help to effectively compare hazard characteristics across the given
geographical area.
While collecting hazard data, keep in mind:
Changing hazard characteristics–Is the data outdated? Recent research has shown
that human interaction with the environment contributes to the intensity and frequency of
certain natural hazards. Increased erosion of riverbanks and coastlines commonly effect
flood areas and elevations. Global climate change, induced by such factors as increased
population growth, reliance on fossil fuel technologies, and large-scale deforestation has
led to average increased temperatures and sea levels (Bureau of Meteorology-Australia).
In flood prone coastal areas, such a change may affect both the frequency and intensity
of flooding.
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 28 /
For the purpose of determining risk, potential hazard events are commonly defined as a
function of their magnitude and likelihood of occurrence. Thus a potential earthquake
might be described as a 50 year - M7 earthquake. The United States Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) suggests the creation of a matrix to represent risk. Table
3, illustrates a generic example of this. On one axis, hazard magnitudes or intensities
are classified. On the other axis, frequencies are defined. Geographical areas are then
assigned a risk level based on the approximate magnitude and frequency of a potential
hazard event.
Table 3: Sample Magnitude - Frequency Matrix
F
requency
Very high
IV
IV
V
V
High
III
IV
IV
V
Medium
III
III
IV
IV
Low
II
III
III
IV
Very low
II
II
III
IV
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
Magnitude
Another effective way to represent hazard characteristics and the potentially affected ar-
eas is by plotting this information on a map. Figure 3 illustrates a seismic hazard map of
the Gujarat state of India. Where several hazards exist, maps of the same scale can be
overlaid to quickly identify those areas facing multiple hazards.
Such maps can be important planning tools for future school construction. When overlaid
with maps which identify vulnerabilities of existing schools, they can be an effective means
of approximating risk of existing schools.
Please see Appendix 3 for references to resources on planning
hazard assessments
2. Identify the location of schools
To identify the hazards to which a given school or prospective school is exposed and their
potential magnitudes and likelihood of occurrence, you will need to determine the location
of schools in question. If you are using hazard maps, school locations can be plotted
directly on the hazard maps.
At this point, if you are considering new schools, you should have the necessary
information to:
Determine an approximate measure of risk of building a new school within the geo-
graphic area of consideration. Note: You will still need to conduct more detailed
assessments when selecting a site. Site characteristics may greatly influence the
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 29
both the intensity and frequency of hazard events. Site-specific secondary haz-
ards may also exist that require assessment before approving a school design.
Identify an appropriate building code which will guide the design and construction
of more hazard resilient schools.
If you are considering one or a relatively small number of existing schools and have the
resources to immediately conduct detailed vulnerability assessments, you will not need
to establish a prioritization schema. Step 4.6 provides guidance on conducting detailed
school vulnerability assessments.
Figure 4: Seismicity Zoning Map - Gujarat, India
Source: Institute of Seismic Research, Govt. of Gujarat, India
If you are considering a large number of existing schools the following section will out-
line the iterative process of assessing the risk of existing schools and prioritizing them for
retrofitting.
3. Determine risk of existing schools and prioritize for retrofitting measures
Where a large number of schools are being considered, conducting detailed assessments
of each and every school in order to determine those schools at greatest risk may not be
financially feasible. Adopting a transparent and technically-based prioritization schema, or
risk screening plan, can help to quickly identify the most vulnerable schools.
Creating a prioritization schema based on risk
A general model:
Begins with correlating the initial hazard assessment data, school locations, school
populations, and the age and type of buildings. From this information you can de-
termine those schools in high hazard zones with the most vulnerable buildings and
the largest school populations.
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 30 /
If further prioritization is required to meet resource constraints, a rapid visual as-
sessment of the higher risk buildings can be conducted to select the most vulner-
able buildings for detailed assessment. See appendix 3 for references to visual
assessment tools.
Finally, detailed assessments of these buildings will provide the necessary infor-
mation to determine what mitigation measures can be taken (Petal, 2008).
Figure 5 illustrates the prioritization process within the larger retrofitting sequence of
events
Figure 5: Example of Retrofit Workflow Diagram
Please see Appendix 3 for references on risk screening tools
for prioritizing retrofit efforts
What other criteria might be considered when prioritizing existing schools
Other criteria may warrant consideration when prioritizing schools for retrofitting.
Disruption of school operations
Accessibility of hazard data
Resource mobilization
Site accessibility
Political pressure
Type of school (public, private, etc.)
School calendar, occupancy
Number of buildings and rooms
Avoid prioritizing schools based on a single hazard type within a multi hazard area
(IFRC & the Provention Consortium, 2007). For example within a cyclone-prone
area, one might choose to design a heavier roof to prevent roof blow-off. If this area is also
prone to earthquakes, a lighter roof is preferable. In such a case, a solution must be found
to account for the forces of both hazards.
See Step 5.6
Assessing the vulnerability of existing
school facilities
See Step 5.8 and 5.9
Preparing a new school or retrofitting design
Assuring quality of implementation
Prioritize existing schools for
retrofitting measures
Mitigation
potential
Initial risk screening
Relevant hazards, school
locations & demograph-
ics, any documentation on
school buildings
More vulnerable schools
More vulnerable schools
Rapid Visual
Assessment
Technical
assessment
& structural
analysis
Unable to meet
acceptable
standards or
cost above
designated
threshold
Choose
retrofitting
strategies
Design
retrofitting plan
Logistical
Planning &
determine
sequence of
work
Retrofitting
Intensive
supervision and
on-site training
Replace
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 31
4.2.3 key Points to consider
Many interim measures can be initiated in schools awaiting retrofit work. School
disaster preparedness and response training, and simple non-structural measures
(such as re-hinging doors to swing away) all can make a school safer.
For larger scale initiatives, this assessment can lead to the elaboration of an impact
study of disasters on the education sector. Such studies can be powerful tools
to advocate for support and policy development and can be undertaken with as-
sistance of local consultants, universities or technical institutes.
Please see Appendix 3 for references on hazard impact studies
on the education sector
The data you have collected and compiled may be of great value to a variety of
government agencies, organizations, businesses, and especially school communi-
ties. Disseminating this information widely can be an effective advocacy strategy
and awareness raising tool.
NORTH PAkISTAN—Demonstration effect of retrofitting
As part of the Aga Khan Planning and Building Service, Pakistan (AKPBSP) Habitat Risk
Management (HRMP) Program in Northern Pakistan, the HRM program initiated a public
and private building retrofitting project, in collaboration with the Eastern Midlands Housing
Association, in summer of 2008. The projects’ aim was to promote earthquake resistant
construction technologies and to build the capacities of local population. The objective
was achieved through a community-driven approach that 1) implemented the structural
and non-structural activities of seismic retrofitting (public buildings and houses); 2) re-
constructed houses, 3) trained artisans in safe construction trades and 4) trained female
youth in village mapping, land use planning and disaster management measures. As ca-
pacity building was a main focus of the program, one important criterion for the choice
of locations was the potential for the dissemination of disaster risk knowledge and skills
throughout the district.
The retrofitting of schools was included to propagate the seismic safety message to com-
munities through children, who inevitably take information home and convince their parents
who typically construct their own houses. In this way the initiative of making school safer
against earthquake not only protects school children, but also educates communities to pro-
tect themselves and informs them of the local availability, and use, of the tools to do so.
In addition to the four schools, one health facility and 20 houses retrofitted to seismic stan-
dards, the project trained 23 builders in seismic resistant construction practices with four
female youth trained in risk mapping exercises. As of January 2009, the project noted that,
“The masons trained in the retrofitting works have begun a transfer of technology into their
own work and replication of retrofitting techniques has been started in the area.”
Source: Promotion of Earthquake Resistant Construction Technologies in Ishkoman/Ponial Valleys of Northern
Areas, Pakistan: Project Completion Report. Courtesy of Aga Khan Planning and Building Services, Pakistan.
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 32 /
4.3 DEFINING PERFORMANCE OBjECTIVES
What is the
objective of this
step?
To assign performance objectives for the mitigation of damage, loss and
disruption to important school assets and services.
What is the
purpose?
Defining performance objectives is a process of prioritizing important
school assets and services and determining the maximum level of damage
or disruption that can be tolerated for a hazard event of a given magnitude
and frequency. These objectives become the safety standards a new
school or retrofit design will attempt to achieve.
How does this step
relate to others?
Designated performance objectives will inform:
The analysis, selection, or development of building code or retrofit stan-
dards (Step 4.4)
The selection of a school site (Step 4.5)
The structural assessment of existing schools (Step 4.6)
The design of a school or retrofitting plan (Step 4.7)
4.3.1 Introduction
What are performance objectives?
In a few cases, the risk posed to a school may be eliminated. Relocating existing schools
outside of a landslide hazard zone is one example. Yet most often, siting a school outside
CAMBODIA—Hazard impact study on the education sector
To build up evidence-based rationale for raising awareness on disaster risk reduction in the
education sector and to advocate for new policies, practices and hazard resilient school
construction, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, the National Committee for Di-
saster Management and ADPC conducted a sector wide hazard impact study.
The study focused on the following points:
Socio-economic and physical impacts of disasters on education sector
Review of current practices in school construction
Solution oriented recommendations to:
Minimize the social and economic impacts of disasters, especially on education
•
sector;
Improve procedures and guidelines for school construction;
•
Identify specific opportunities to improve safety in school construction in pipeline
•
projects over the following 3 years.
Source: http://www.adpc.net/v2007/IKM/ONLINE%20DOCUMENTS/downloads/2008/Mar/MDRDEduca-
tionCambodiaFinal_Mar08.pdf
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 33
the hazard affected area is not feasible. In these cases, efforts must be made to reduce
the risk posed by hazards. Performance objectives, in the context of hazard resilient
construction and retrofit, are objectives which describe an acceptable damage level
for a given building and a given hazard or hazards. Performance objectives set a goal for
how a building will be designed to perform during and after a hazard event, given technical,
financial and other considerations. They may be referred to as protection levels, safety
levels, or acceptable risk levels.
The minimum performance objective for any school should be
to protect lives.
4.3.2 How do you do it?
1. Identify school services and assets
Creating a list of school assets, services, and their relative importance, will help to system-
atically establish the maximum damage, harm and disruption that can be tolerated during
and after a hazard event.
The primary asset of any school is the school population. The school facilities such
as classrooms and offices are assets. Other assets may include laboratory and
computer equipment, the school electrical system and school records.
The primary service a school provides is education. Schools may also be commu-
nity centers and quite often they serve as shelters, or safe havens, during a flood,
windstorm, or landslide.
2. Setting performance objectives for school assets and services
Performance objectives may vary somewhat based on hazard. Further research and advice
from a qualified structural engineer will assist you to identify the appropriate performance
objective variables. Three common performance objectives, relevant to most hazards, are
Life Safety, Infrastructure Protection, and Continuous Occupancy.
Performance Objective
Description
HIGHEST:
Continuous
Occupancy (CO)
The structural system must perform in such a way that the building can
continue to be used safely both during, and immediately after an adverse
event. The structural elements must remain nearly as rigid and resistant
as before the emergency. Any damage that occurs should be minimal,
with no repairs required for school or shelter operational continuity (what
is known as controlled damage). Nonstructural components should con-
tinue to function without alteration, both during and after the emergency.
Any damage should be minimal and allow for immediate occupancy of the
premises.
MODERATE:
Infrastructure
Protection (IP)
Damage to the structural system is acceptable so long as the specified
assets are protected. It should be possible to repair any damage that
occurs, at a reasonable expense and in a short period of time. (Records
of costs of repair and construction of existing schools should provide suf-
ficient estimations necessary to define acceptable cost criteria.)
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 34 /
Performance Objective
Description
MINIMuM:
Life Safety (LS)
Damage to the structural and nonstructural components is acceptable so
long as it does not endanger human life. Repairs may be expensive and in-
terfere severely with school operations in the medium and even long term
Adapted from (Guidelines for Vulnerability Reduction in the Design
of New Health Facilities, 2004)
For each asset and service identified, an appropriate performance objective should be
designated. Pay special note to services or assets which may be hazardous or harmful,
life-saving or essential, or likely to cause panic or chaos during or after a hazard event. For
example, if a particular school building is to serve as a storm shelter, the school community
must be able to use it safely during and after the storm. Therefore, the building must be
assigned the Continuity of Operations performance objective. Table 4 lists a sampling of
assets and services for which you may want to consider a higher performance objective.
The minimum performance objective should always be life safety.
Table 4: Sample of assets and services that may require a higher performance objective
Service or asset
MIN:
LS
MOD:
IP
HIGH:
PO
School administrative
office
Are there important documents or records
which should be protected?
Hazard shelter
If a building or entire school is to serve as a
shelter it must remain functional throughout a
hazard event .
Science laboratory
Does valuable equipment warrant additional
protection?
Are chemicals stored which could create a
secondary hazard?
IT laboratory
Does valuable equipment warrant additional
protection?
Cafeteria/kitchen
Is there fuel-driven equipment which could
possibly become a secondary hazard?
Toilets
If school building is to serve as a hazard shel-
ter, are toilets accessible?
In flood-prone areas, flooding toilets can cre-
ate a secondary hazard.
Other…
The cost of implementing additional mitigation measures to meet a higher performance
objective will vary. Consulting with an architect or structural engineer during the design
process will help to estimate further costs.
Please see Appendix 3 for references on performance objectives and
performance based design
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 35
4.3.3 key Points to consider
Fostering Community Ownership: Ideally all buildings would be constructed or
retrofit to meet the highest performance objective, but this is often not technically
possible, nor financially feasible. To reach consensus on the performance objec-
tives, it is essential that the process be transparent, in which all groups involved
understand the cost and technical constraints. Giving the school community a
central role in determining the hazard resistant capacity of their school buildings
can greatly enhance their sense of ownership.
If a large number of new and/or existing schools are to be considered, you may
want to set provisional performance objectives at an early stage in the process.
This will be useful for budget planning purposes. Care should be given to ensure
all partners understand the provisional nature of the performance objectives. Due
to financial or technical design constraints it may be necessary to settle for a lower
performance objective. Performance objectives should only be finalized during
the design phase.
The retrofit of existing schools to performance objectives higher than that of life
safety can be costly and time-consuming. It is advisable to establish a perfor-
mance objective of life safety for retrofit projects until structural assessments have
been conducted and mitigation measures and associated costs have been pro-
posed. If it is determined that a school building is to serve as a safe haven, it may
be more economical to construct a new building on-site.
Schools, commonly large and public buildings, are often used as shelters, both
during and after violent storms. The provision of shelter is an important service
the school can provide to the community. When planning such a service, it is
essential to consider how school operations will continue when longer term com-
munity shelter is needed. In some cases, separate structures are created to
serve both as shelters and temporary schools in the aftermath of a hazard event.
For guidance on space usage for permanent schools and multi-purpose shelters
used as schools, please see: http://www.ineesite.org/uploads/documents/store/
Space_Planning_of_School_Buildings_and_Multi-Purpose_Shelters.doc.
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 36 /
4.4 ADOPTING BuILDING CODES AND RETROFIT
GuIDELINES
What is the
objective of this
step?
To identify a set of building codes or retrofit guidelines that provide techni-
cal design and implementation guidance on making a school more resilient
to hazards.
What is the
purpose?
Building codes provide standards which define how to design and con-
struct or retrofit a building to resist hazards of a specified magnitude and
frequency. The design team will use these building codes to ensure that the
school building meets the designated performance objectives for a given
set of hazard characteristics.
Building codes rarely address the challenges of strengthening existing
buildings that do not meet existing standards. A set of retrofit guidelines,
that details tested techniques to enhance the hazard resilience of a building,
will help guide the design of an effective retrofit solution.
How does this step
relate to others?
The building code may inform the suitability of a building site (Step 4.5).
The building code will be used to determine appropriate hazard resistant
requirements of a new school building which meet the performance objec-
tives (Step 4.7).
Retrofit guidelines will provide guidance on appropriate retrofitting tech-
niques to increase the hazard resistance of an existing school (Steps 4.6,
4.7, and 4.8).
The building code will be used to assess the quality of construction (Step
4.8).
4.4.1 Introduction
What are building codes?
Building codes are a body of rules which specify the minimum requirement a building must
meet to ensure the safety and well-being of its occupants. Some building codes may
provide detailed instructions that stipulate particular methods and materials, while others
may only provide standards of varying specificity (See section 4.6.3 for discussion of pre-
scriptive versus performance-based code). Not all building codes include standards for
hazard resistant buildings.
Retrofitting and building codes
Although structural principles within a building code may be established to apply equally
to the construction of new buildings and the retrofit of existing ones, building codes, by
and large, are oriented to new construction. If guidance on retrofitting does exist, it may
often be unclear and rarely provides the detailed criteria and instruction necessary to prac-
tically and economically retrofit a building.
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 37
What are retrofit guidelines?
Retrofit guidelines consist of detailed de-
scriptions of techniques which can be used
to make a building more resistant to the ef-
fects of a hazard. These techniques will vary
based on the type of hazard and on the build-
ing typology. To meet the performance objec-
tives designated for a given school building,
the structural engineer must evaluate and
adapt these techniques where appropriate.
4.4.2 How do you do it?
1. Determine if an applicable building
code exists
Does a building code exist?
Building codes may be defined and enforced
at a national, regional or local level. In many
countries, such as the United States and In-
dia, it is the responsibility of state, district, or
local governments to adapt a building code
and enforce it. In such cases a national code
may exist, but may not be enacted into law.
In some countries a building code may not
exist, or may exist, but not be enforced.
If a building code exists, does it accurately
address hazard-resistant construction?
Not every building code specifies standards
to construct a building capable of resisting
hazard forces. You will want to carefully eval-
uate the code to determine whether the ap-
propriate hazards are addressed.
It is equally important to determine how re-
cently the building code has been updated.
Effective building codes are continuously
updated as scientists gather more detailed
information on the characteristics of hazards
and the effects they have on structures. In
1984, an earthquake of magnitude, 6.4
PERu—new standards
Between 1966 and 1996, 50% of the
buildings damaged by earthquakes in
Peru were educational facilities. Most of
the damage was due to the poor lateral
strength of short columns.
In 2003, a committee of professors and
university students created an adden-
dum to the building code to address this
problem and to designate schools as es-
sential facilities.
Due to the new addendum, buildings ret-
rofit and newly constructed have evaded
this structural failure.
Source: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/761_
education-good-practices.pdf
INDIA–Government enforces
nationwide adherence to
national building code for school
construction
In the case of India, construction regula-
tion falls under the jurisdiction of state
and union governments. Due to the
failure of 27 state and union territories
to meet appropriate fire safety require-
ments within their schools, the national
government enacted a law that enforced
a nationwide adherence to the national
building code for all public and private
schools.
Where measures prescribed by the
building code are not met, responsible
officials are subject to disciplinary ac-
tion.
Source: http://eledu.net/?q=en/node/1474
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 38 /
shook the West Valley College gymnasium in California. Although built to the Uniform
Building Code, instruments in the gymnasium’s roof showed that it was so flexible that a
slightly stronger earthquake could have caused extensive damage and potential harm to
occupants. Because of this, the building code was revised in 1991 (USGS, 1996).
Does the building code specify requirements for locally-available and familiar building
materials?
If the building code is prescriptive in nature, it may stipulate the use of specific building
materials and methods. If the building code does not accommodate the use of locally-
available materials, it may be worth reviewing other building codes as the procurement and
delivery of materials can be both costly and time-consuming.
Is there any national or local guidance on retrofitting relevant building types?
Some building codes do provide useful guidance on retrofitting existing buildings that
have been designed and constructed to meet building code standards. Additionally, na-
tional engineering societies, disaster management organizations, non-profit organizations,
and universities may have developed retrofit guidelines appropriate to local building ty-
pologies.
2. If a suitable building code or retrofit guidelines do not exist, adopt or
develop them.
If the official building code does not address hazard resistant construction or retrofit-
ting, other sources, such as engineering institutes and professional associations, disaster
management organizations, NGOs, and donor organizations may furnish, or recommend,
an applicable building code or set of retrofit guidelines. Counterparts in other nations
exposed to similar hazards may possess applicable codes as well. As part of a national
action plan for safer schools, the government of Haiti has developed standards for safe
school construction based on the Caribbean Building Code.
Other potential sources are insurance companies, trade unions or associations, vocational
schools, engineering schools, as well as international and national industries.
Retrofitting guidelines are hazard and building type specific. Many are publicly available
and can serve as valuable resources for determining appropriate techniques and develop-
ing context specific guidance training builders.
Please see Appendix 3 for references to resources on building codes
and retrofit guidance
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 39
4.4.3 key Points to consider
Although nationwide institutionalization of hazard-resilient building codes can be a
powerful tool to enhance school safety (see case study), where building codes are
not enacted or enforced, the more immediate goal should be to identify and adopt
appropriate building codes to meet the demands of safer school construction.
Ministries of education can set standards for schools which enforce compliance
to a set of building codes. Through the adherence to these codes and the inclu-
sion of national and local architects, engineers and inspectors, schools can serve
as examples strengthening the argument for national reform.
Building codes can be prescriptive, performance-based or some mixture of the
two. Prescriptive building codes provide detailed specifications, including ma-
terials and methods, required to meet safety standards. Performance/Objective-
based codes are comprised of designated performance standards. The justifica-
tion of how a given design meets these performance codes is the responsibility
of the architects and engineers submitting the design. Table 5 lists some of the
benefits and drawbacks of these code types. In many cases, both prescriptive
and performance-based codes are used. Where the prescriptive code poses
constraints and qualified engineers and architects are involved, performance
Table 5: Benefits and drawbacks of Prescriptive and Performance-based Code
Code type
Benefits
Drawbacks
Prescriptive Code
Provide detailed instructions
Require less engineering
capacity
Limit design possibilities
(restricted building materials and
practices)
Performance/
Objective-based
Code
Allows for innovative designs
(materials, technologies, and
methods approved by structural
engineer).
Commonly accompanied by
more prescriptive compliance
documents, suggesting
appropriate methods and
materials
Requires greater engineering
capacity for design approval and
quality assurance
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 40 /
4.5 ASSESSING A SCHOOL SITE
What is the
objective of this
step?
To conduct a detailed assessment of site-specific hazard characteristics
and any conditions that make a site more or less vulnerable.
What is the
purpose?
The purpose of conducting site-specific hazard assessment is to uncover
the interactions between local hazards and a particular environment in order
to:
select a site that accommodates the performance and functional objec-
tives of a new school
identify potential site modifications to reduce the vulnerability of an ex-
isting school
How does this step
relate to others?
When retrofitting schools, an assessment of the existing school site is con-
ducted in concert with the detailed assessment of the existing school build-
ings (Step 4.6).
When constructing new schools, hazard characteristics and site conditions
will inform the design process (Step 4.7).
4.5.1 Introduction
A school building’s capacity to protect its occupants relies not only on the effective de-
sign of the structure, but on the environment in which it is built. A building designed and
constructed or retrofit to meet hazard resistant standards may offer little protection to its
occupants if it rests on a particularly vulnerable site.
Why is site selection important?
Landslides and mudslides: For hazards such as landslides and mudslides, reducing school
risk is achieved by minimizing exposure to the moving mass through site selection. When
exposure to a landslide or mudslide cannot be avoided through site selection, measures
must be taken to reduce the likelihood of occurrence and the area affected. This involves
modifying the site and its surrounding areas through measures such as slope stabilization
strategies, drainage system development, or retention wall construction.
Figure 6: River floods a school after 2008
Typhoon Frank, Philippines
Copyright: Lenard Cristobal
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 41
Floods: In the case of flooding, the selection of an adequately elevated site may eliminate
a school’s risk of flood damage or loss. When a suitably elevated site does not exist,
modifications to the site such as adding fill to elevate the building and creating floodwalls
or drainage systems can reduce potential damage and loss.
Earthquakes: Site assessment is essential when building or retrofitting schools in seismic
zones. Although nothing can be done to decrease the magnitude, likelihood or affected
area of an earthquake, measures can be taken to ensure that site characteristics such as
soil composition do not amplify earthquake loads on a building. Careful site assessment
will also help to identify secondary hazards triggered by an earthquake which can induce
damage and loss, such as falling objects and liquefaction.
Windstorms: The likelihood of an extreme wind event is beyond human control, but the
intensity can be reduced by selecting sites with natural wind barriers. Site assessment
is crucial to identify secondary hazards, such as wind-borne debris, as well as conditions
which may increase the intensity of an extreme wind event.
The school site also plays an important
functional role in the teaching and learning
environment. A location accessible to all
children, located close to the community it
serves, and with sufficient space for outdoor
play can enhance learning opportunities. A
good site assessment considers not only the
safety level a school should provide, but also
a site’s capacity to meet functional require-
ments of a school.
4.5.2 How do you do it?
1. Identify who will conduct
assessment
Land use planner: Where zoning laws and
land use plans exist and are up to date, a
planner will identify areas, such as flood
plains or high risk landslide zones, which are
unsuitable for construction.
Qualified Engineers: A qualified structural
engineer must approve a site before it is se-
lected for the construction or retrofitting of
a school. Soil type, elevation, gradient, and
vegetation are but a few characteristics of a
INDONESIA—“Fair but far”
Save the Children’s (SC) Tsunami Re-
habilitation and Reconstruction program
Aceh and Nias, has 58 school buildings
and built 68 new ‘Safe and Child Friendly’
school buildings. Upon a community and
government request for the construction
of a new safer school in a village of Aceh,
SC sent a team to assess the proposed
school site. A preliminary survey of the
location found that the site was an un-
settled area and a 15 minute walk on
poor trails to the nearest village. When
queried, the community leader explained
that the primary school would serve four
surrounding villages and therefore the
site was located equidistant from all of
the villages. After negotiation with the
neighboring villages, one village was
chosen to host the school. A suitable
site, centrally located in the village was
selected and the school built.
Courtesy of SC -USA/Construction Quality and
Technical Assistance Unit
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 42 /
site and its surroundings which can influence the intensity and likelihood of a hazard event.
Loose sub-soils in a seismic zone amplify the forces that an earthquake exerts on a build-
ing. The likelihood of a landslide increases when a mountainside is stripped of it stabilizing
vegetation due to logging or farming. These influences and many others, all change how
a hazard event will affect a building and what measures must be taken to minimize poten-
tially damaging effects. The approving engineer may recommend the consultation of other
specialists to perform specific tests.
School or education sector representatives: The representation of school district officials,
teachers and students from nearby schools, or other education sector representatives will
ensure that the appropriate functional school requirements are effectively considered in
the assessment.
Local Residents: An equally important role in the site assessment process is played by
local residents. They can provide detailed information on land use, topography, climatic
effects, and other factors which influence a site’s vulnerability. With a minimal investment
in training and appropriate supervision, youth and adults in the community can assist in
gathering hazard data through interviews or careful measurement of hazard indicators.
Their role in assessing a site can serve as a valuable hands-on learning experience, engag-
ing them to reflect on their risk and the measures which can be taken to reduce it.
2. Create site assessment guidance materials
Guidelines/checklist for preliminary site selection (for new construction)
The provision of land for school construction, particularly in rural areas, is often the respon-
sibility of local government or the community. When local governments or communities
are unaware of the many factors influencing a site’s suitability, the land proposed may be
unsuitable or, at worst, may increase a school’s risk of damage and loss.
As many of the criteria do not require extensive technical expertise, providing guidelines
and/or training to local residents or officials can assist them to propose school sites which
pose less danger and are better suited to teaching and learning requirements.
Guidance materials may already exist in the form of school construction standards. Rwan-
da’s Ministry of Education has developed a set of national standards and guidelines for
‘Child Friendly’ school infrastructure which includes criteria for school site selection. Many
international organizations and education sector NGOs provide similar guidance. Section
5 of these guidance notes provides some very basic suggestions on selecting sites in
hazard zones.
Please see Appendix 3 for references to various resources
on school infrastructure standards
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 43
Site assessment tool
The development and piloting of a more detailed site selection tool for use by the site as-
sessment team will help to organize the collected data for future decision-making. This
tool serves to:
Justify the site selection.
1.
Identify site specific hazard sources and characteristics
2.
Identify potential secondary hazards, their sources and characteristics
3.
Identify site vulnerabilities
4.
Propose and justify mitigation measures
5.
Discuss logistical implications for construction.
6.
It is important to note once again that the final selection of a site must be
approved by a qualified structural engineer with hazard-specific expertise or
experience.
3. Conduct site assessments
A site assessment begins with a review of the existing risk assessments and the provision-
ary performance objectives. The existing risk assessments will provide a baseline from
which to determine site specific hazard characteristics and vulnerabilities. The perfor-
mance objectives will serve as key standards for determining a site’s suitability. A school
intended to serve as a shelter or safe haven may require additional criteria for assess-
ment.
Strategy: Fostering Community Ownership
Participatory risk mapping is one of many activities designed to engage a community in
the various assessment processes. These activities, when coupled with new knowledge,
empower individuals to:
Identify local hazards and their characteristics,
Detect vulnerabilities within the school and its community,
Recognize their capacity to reduce those vulnerabilities, and
Contribute essential local knowledge and skills to the school construction or retro-
fitting effort.
Please see Appendix 3 for references on
participatory hazard assessment activities.
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 44 /
Site-specific (micro level) hazard assessment
The characteristics of a hazard may vary greatly from site to site. For each hazard a site
faces, the magnitude, likelihood of occurrence, and affected area must be determined so
as to ensure that the designated mitigation measures assure the level of safety designated
by the performance objectives. In general, sites in high risk areas will require more de-
tailed studies. Consultations with geological and hydro-meteorological experts will help
to determine the extent of studies required. For more regularly occurring hazards such
as seasonal floods, much of the information required can be provided by local residents.
Historical records and accounts by landowners, local residents and officials will provide
valuable indicators of past events which will help to determine the local hazard character-
istics.
Whether considering new construction or retrofit, a soil investigation should be conducted
to determine the soil bearing capacity and the water table level. Other ground-related
tests, relevant to identified hazards should also be conducted (e.g. pore-water concentra-
tion in mudslide zones).
Site vulnerability assessment
It is not within the scope of these guidance notes to propose detailed guidance on identify-
ing those features which make a site more or less vulnerable to hazards. Criteria for deter-
mining a site’s vulnerability vary greatly depending on hazard types, topography, geological
and climatic conditions, land use, and the existing built environment. However, Table 6
lists several generic questions a site assessment should consider.
Figure 7: Creating Hazard Maps -
Caribbean Disaster Management Project
Photo Courtesy of and copyright to JICA. Retrieved
from : http://www.mofa.go.jp/POLICY/oda/white/2005/
ODA2005/html/honpen/hp102010000.htm
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 45
Table 6: Site vulnerability considerations
Site vulnerability questions
Sample sub-questions
What site characteristics
make a site more or less vul-
nerable?
Is the sub-soil sufficiently dense to prevent liquefaction due
to an earthquake?
Is the water table deep enough to prevent water-logging
and ensure timely drainage?
Do natural wind blockades exist to diminish wind loads on
school buildings?
Has the slope been stripped of vegetation by logging or
farming, thus making it more susceptible to a mudslide?
Would the site and surround-
ing area expose the school to
secondary hazards?
Are there any industrial facilities or chemical plants which
might accidentally release toxic materials during a flood?
Are there nearby vulnerable structures which might fall and
potentially damage a school in the event of an earthquake?
Has the site experienced storm surge flooding during
coastal wind events?
Is the site easily accessible?
Can effective and safe evacuation routes be established for
the entire school population, including those with special
needs?
Can emergency response personnel access the school
during or after a hazard event?
If a school or school building is to serve as a shelter or safe
haven can the population access it?
What will be the effects of
future development at the site
and in surrounding areas?
Is there sufficient space for future expansion without in-
creasing the school’s vulnerability?
Will future land use or development in surrounding area
pose greater risks to the school?
Please see Appendix 3 for references to various resources
on site assessments in hazard prone areas
Determine if the site meets functional school requirements (for new construction)
Even the least vulnerable site may not be suitable if it does not meet the functional require-
ments of a school. Pay careful attention to any factors which might enhance or limit ac-
cess to the prospective school facilities and the quality of teaching and learning.
Please see Appendix 3 for references to various resources
on school site selection
Propose mitigation measures for consideration during the design process.
While at the site, it is advantageous to discuss potential mitigation measures. Key consid-
erations for mitigation measures are technical feasibility, resource availability, sustainability,
cost and time. It is advisable to solicit proposals from representatives across the com-
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 46 /
munity. Indigenous measures, when appropriate, are often cost-effective and sustainable
(see case study on indigenous flood mitigation measures in Papua New Guinea).
4. Evaluate existing building types and local building capacity
Hazard-resistant design that is based on known and locally available materials and local
building capacity has the potential to:
Minimize initial costs - The use of locally available materials is typically less costly
and builders are already familiar with many of the properties and applications of
these materials.
Increase sustainability – School buildings are more likely to be maintained when
the skills and materials required to do so exist locally.
Be taken up by local builders for application in local residences and other build-
ings.
In order to determine whether existing materials and technologies (i.e. how the materials
are used) can be incorporated into the hazard resistant design of a school and to assess
local building capacity, you will need to evaluate:
Properties of the materials, such as strength and durability to resist the forces of
identified hazards. Desired building material properties will depend on the hazard
and can be determined by a structural engineer.
Capacity of building technologies to resist the forces of the identified hazards.
Building practices and rationale for the use of building materials and technologies.
The reasons why builders and designers choose to apply particular methods or
use certain materials may be due to cost, availability, technical know-how, cul-
tural values, and sometimes misconceptions. These are valuable considerations
which will inform the school design and can provide a baseline for developing
local builder capacity.
4.5.3 key Points to consider
A clear and shared understanding of the relative importance of hazard-resistant
requirements and school functional requirements will help to negotiate the various
compromises you will need to make when assessing a site.
Where land typically serves as a community’s livelihood, it may be the least valu-
able piece of land that is donated for the school. Quite frequently it is also the
least accessible and the least suitable site with respect to local hazard charac-
teristics. In addition to providing guidance to a community on choosing suitable
sites, it may also be necessary to consider compensatory measures when suitable
sites may serve as someone’s livelihood.
Awareness-raising - Sharing the results of the site assessment with the local pop-
ulation is an excellent awareness-raising opportunity which may foster continued
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 47
engagement in the school construction/retrofitting process.
Including local builders in the preliminary and more technical aspects of site as-
sessments may be a good training opportunity. These builders may eventually be
responsible for the retrofit/construction and maintenance of the school buildings.
Establishing relationships early in the process will facilitate future collaboration.
Vernacular building practices and materials, sometimes regarded as inferior, “can
tell us how people in the past confronted the problem of creating structures in which
to live and work under the influence of adversities such as shortages of wood, stone,
or clay, and threats such as wind, water, and, of course, the most extreme threat of
all – large earthquakes” (Langenbach, 2000). The use of vernacular technologies
has a number of advantages, but poses many challenges as well.
Advantages
Challenges
Locally available resources decrease cost
Rarely represented in building codes
Culturally relevant buildings increase ownership
Evaluating production characteristics to ensure
compliance with building code can be time-
consuming
Existing skills minimize training needs and cost
PAPuA NEW GuINEA—Indigenous flood
mitigation measures
Living alongside the banks of one of PNG’s major rivers, the Singas community is con-
stantly under threat from flooding.
The community had been told to move their settlement away from the river banks to higher
ground in the hills, as part of a ‘top-down’ solution to their problem of flooding. However,
they never moved. The river was valuable for their livelihood, they were close to amenities,
and they had resided there for years, coping with previous floods. The Singas community
manages their risk in the following ways:
They build large mounds of rubbish over a period of time, cover these mounds with
1.
soil, and stabilize the soil with plants. Atop the mounds, they build houses on stilts
made from local wood. The Singas construct their houses during the dry season to
allow the buildings to settle before the rains arrive.
High elevation areas are located and marked as safe areas to which the community
2.
can evacuate.
The Singas have hand-dug drainage systems which divert flood waters away from
3.
fields and other important assets.
Vegetation is planted around homes to further stabilize the soil.
4.
Source: http://www.unisdr.org/eng/about_isdr/isdr-publications/19-Indigenous_Knowledge-DRR/Indigenous_
Knowledge-DRR.pdf
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 48 /
4.6 ASSESSING THE VuLNERABILITY OF EXISTING
SCHOOL BuILDINGS
What is the
objective of this
step?
To conduct a detailed vulnerability assessment of the structural and
non-structural components of an existing school in a hazard prone
area.
What is the
purpose?
A detailed vulnerability assessment of the school facilities is con-
ducted to:
Identify the buildings’ vulnerabilities with respect to local haz-
ards,
Determine whether to retrofit or reconstruct the buildings, and
Propose appropriate retrofit strategies to enhance the build-
ings’ hazard resistance.
How does this
step relate to
others?
Figure 2 on page 22 illustrates the larger workflow of the assess-
ment, planning, design and implementation of a retrofit effort. The
process begins with preliminary assessments for prioritization (see
step 4.2), followed by a site assessment (see step 4.6) and detailed
structural assessment and ending with the design, planning and
implementation of the retrofit measures (see steps 4.8 and 4.9).
Note, the site assessment (step 4.6) and the detailed structural as-
sessment can be conducted simultaneously.
4.6.1 Introduction
In order to accurately estimate the risk of an existing school and propose effective mitiga-
tion measures, a thorough vulnerability assessment of the structural and non-structural
components of a school’s facilities is required.
4.6.2 How do you do it?
1. Identify who will conduct the building assessment
Qualified engineer: The expertise and experience of a qualified structural engineer is re-
quired to coordinate the assessment, determine necessary tests, and propose potential
retrofitting strategies.
School community representatives: Involving the school community, specifically students
and teachers who use the building regularly, will help to identify how specific components
were intended to be used and, more importantly, how they are actually being used. Like-
wise, school communities can furnish drawings and descriptions of schools which iden-
tify: damages induced by previous disasters, visible indications of weakness (e.g. cracks,
dampness, etc…), and a history of issues, maintenance and repairs.
Local builders: Often, a building’s deficiencies may not be visible. Local builders can pro-
vide valuable insight on the quality of materials and techniques used to build the school. In
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 49
addition, the identification of school vulnerabilities and potential mitigation strategies can
be an excellent training opportunity, particularly for those builders who will participate in
the retrofit implementation.
2. Establish criteria to determine whether to retrofit or reconstruct
The primary purpose of conducting a detailed structural assessment is to determine the po-
tential weaknesses of the building and identify the most appropriate measures to strengthen
it. In some cases, relatively few measures will be required to meet the performance objec-
tives. In other cases, the conditions of a building might require a costly and time-consuming
solution to increase its hazard resistant capacity. Where the cost and time reach a given
threshold, reconstruction may prove a more effective and efficient solution.
Cost and time may not be the only criteria upon which you base this decision. The Istanbul
Seismic Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness (ISMEP) project, partially funded by the
World Bank, considers four criteria when determining whether to retrofit or reconstruct
a school: financially affordable, economically justifiable, technically feasible, and socially
acceptable (Presentation at INEE Global Consultation, April 3, 2009). Three of these
criteria are elaborated below.
Cost: Cost is commonly the deciding factor in determining whether to retrofit or recon-
struct. The aforementioned ISMEP project set a cost threshold to facilitate their decision-
making. If the cost to retrofit the building was over 40% of the cost to reconstruct, the
school was demolished and rebuilt (Presentation at INEE Global Consultation, April 3,
2009). In addition to materials and labor, you may want to consider several other related
variables when estimating and comparing costs.
Reconstruction may require demolition of the building and the removal of rubble
The cost of a building includes both capital and recurring expenses. In comparing
cost, be sure to calculate the recurring expenses, such as maintenance and repair,
both for a retrofit and reconstructed school.
If other school renovations are to coincide with retrofitting, these costs should be
considered.
Figure 8: Earthquake induced cracking on
this school in Rwanda
Courtesy and copyright of UNICEF Rwanda
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 50 /
Social acceptance: If the safety benefits of retrofitting a building are not understood, this
option may not be considered desirable by the school community. Awareness-raising ac-
tivities amongst the broader school community and the inclusion of school and community
representatives throughout the building assessment may help to cultivate a better under-
standing of the advantages of retrofitting. Support may also be raised when other identi-
fied repairs or renovations to the school are undertaken along with the retrofit measures.
Some buildings may have a high cultural or historical value and it may not be socially ac-
ceptable to replace them. In such cases, extra cost and effort may be justified to save
these schools from demolition
Technical feasibility: The detailed structural assessment will determine the technical fea-
sibility of retrofitting the building. Factors for consideration are the level of damage, the
quality and condition of materials and building components, and whether the building type
can be retrofit to an acceptable level of safety.
MYANMAR—School serves as model
A joint Save the Children UK/Development Workshop France Safer School Project (SSP)
in Myanmar focuses on clusters of villages. The project objectives are to develop skills
and risk reduction techniques within the communities by using school retrofit projects as
models.
A public two-day participatory hands-on workshop is held in a host village to identify causes
of cyclone damage to buildings and demonstrate ten techniques to strengthen buildings.
Students draw pictures of their strengthened school based on these techniques and local
leaders, builders and other participants discuss strengthening measures to be applied to
the schools. After the workshop and with the supervision of two trained engineers and an
architect, local builders from each community apply these strengthening techniques to the
school buildings. An opening day celebration is hosted and a bamboo model structure is
used to demonstrate how communities can strengthen their homes and other buildings.
Individuals from villages without a school requiring retrofitting have even attended, in hopes
of learning how to strengthen their homes.
The SSP found that through risk and resource mapping, school-going children, working
children and adults are able to determine what resources they have available to them.
All of the villages in which these activities were piloted have referenced the school as a
resource. Now the communities see it as a (physically) safe learning environment and a
place of refuge. Combining the strengthening of schools with children’s involvement in risk
reduction provides a holistic approach to assisting communities feel more confident and
safe in their village.
Source: http://www.dwf.org/blog/documents/SSP_DWF_Myanmar.pdf
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 51
3. Develop assessment materials and training for school community
Community assessment tools and training
A minimal investment in training and awareness-raising will help to ensure wider public
support amongst the school community. The use of school and community-led vulner-
ability assessment tools can be an excellent way to gather valuable information about the
school buildings, their history, and use, while cultivating a growing awareness of local
hazards, vulnerabilities, and the local capacity to reduce risk.
Please see Appendix 3 for references on school, community
and child led risk assessment tools
4. Conduct detailed assessment
The detailed vulnerability assessment is conducted to identify the specific deficiencies of
the school facilities and surrounding environment with respect to the relevant hazards.
Determining vulnerability categories: The vulnerabilities of a school will differ based on
the types of hazards and their expected intensities and frequencies of occurrence. Vulner-
ability categories should address the conditions of the building, its components and ma-
terials, the foundation, the ground composition, site characteristics and potential hazards
posed by the surrounding environment.
Identifying deficiencies: Deficiencies are those characteristics of the school facilities or
site which prevent the school from meeting the performance objectives. For each vulner-
ability category, visual assessments and tests, determined by the structural engineer, are
conducted to identify the specific deficiencies. Soil analysis, compression strength tests,
and concrete composition analyses are a few examples. University engineering depart-
ments with appropriate testing facilities may be excellent potential partners during the
school vulnerability assessment.
Propose retrofit strategies to address deficiencies and meet hazard safety objectives:
While at the site, it is advantageous to discuss potential retrofit strategies. Key consider-
ations are technical feasibility, resource availability, sustainability, cost, and disruption of
school services. Retrofitting strategies proposed by local builders and school communi-
ties can provide new perspectives based on valuable knowledge of local hazards, building
materials and methods, and usage of the school facilities.
Identify other necessary repairs and renovations to improve teaching and learning envi-
ronment: When conducting the detailed vulnerability assessment, it is important to con-
sider not only the hazard resistant capacity of a structure and its environment, but the
functional capacity as a learning environment. Functional features and their importance
should be identified for both structural and non-structural components.
Please see Appendix 3 for references to various resources
on school infrastructure standards
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 52 /
Investigate capacity and constraints to implementing a retrofit plan: In addition to as-
sessing the conditions of a structure with respect to relative hazards, the team should
also identify any capacities or constraints which will influence retrofit activities. Such
constraints and capacities should include, but are not limited to, site accessibility, local
availability of required retrofit materials, and local building capacity. See section 4.6.2.4
for further detail on assessing building materials and local builder capacity.
4.6.3 key Points to consider
Awareness-raising: One of the greatest challenges to retrofitting efforts is a lack of
understanding of the excellent results it can produce. One very effective means of
conveying the benefits of retrofitting is through demonstrations. Mini shake-tables
have been used effectively in Nepal to demonstrate the effects of an earthquake
on ordinary buildings and earthquake resistant buildings. See Figure 9.
Awareness-raising: Structural and site assessments can be valuable learning ex-
periences for school communities. Clearly indicating and explaining the weakness-
es and strengths of the school buildings can provide useful criteria for evaluating
homes and other buildings within the communities. The creation and dissemina-
tion of pictorial guidelines that illustrate these vulnerabilities and feature simple
strengthening measures can help to spread hazard resilient building practices
from the school into the community and have been effectively applied in con-
struction support programs in Nepal (NSET), Vietnam (DWF) and China (Build-
Change). For an example of such guidelines, see Figure 10. Other examples can
be found in Appendix 3.
Figure 9: Shake table demonstration
during National Earthquake Safety Day in
Kathmandu, Nepal
Photo courtesy of and copyright of NSET, Nepal
Page 53 /
Figure 10: Making Schools Safer from Future Eartquakes Poster–Earthquake Safe
Communities in Nepal by 2020
Courtesy National Society for Earthquake Technology - Nepal (NSET)
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 54 /
4.7 PREPARING A NEW SCHOOL DESIGN OR
RETROFITTING PLAN
What is the objective
of this step?
To design a new school or retrofitting plan that satisfies the performance
objectives and school design criteria.
What is the
purpose?
Hundreds of years of scientific research and testing have resulted in a much
greater understanding of the forces of nature and how structures can be
built to resist them. The purpose of designing a hazard-resistant school or
retrofitting plan, is to utilize this knowledge to create structures more ca-
pable of resisting the powerful forces hazards exert on buildings.
How does this step
relate to others?
This step will produce the design, estimated time and costs, and all neces-
sary documentation required to begin the construction or retrofitting of a
school (Step 4.8).
4.7.1 Introduction
The design of a new school or retrofit plan is the culmination of all the assessment and
planning undertaken. It is both a process of creativity and negotiation. The many tradeoffs
required to produce an acceptable design will benefit from:
An uncompromising intent that all design requirements and considerations are
understood by all parties;
A willingness to compromise to reach consensus; and
An open environment that encourages the proposal of new and different solu-
tions.
An ongoing effort to ensure the wider school community is aware of the design
considerations and is well represented throughout the process.
4.7.2 How do you do it?
1. Determine roles within the design process
The design process involves three functional teams:
Management team
Execution team
Quality assurance team
The role of the management team is to define the school design requirements, manage
the overall design process, and provide the assessment reports, building code, and any
other physical, technical and financial resources. As the design process is the realization
of the envisioned school, the management team should include representatives of the vari-
ous stakeholder groups, particularly the school communities.
The role of the design team is to define the design criteria, (based on the performance
objectives, the assessment results, and the building code) and design the structural and
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 55
architectural plans. The design team is also responsible for the preparation of construc-
tion documents, inspection guidelines, operating standards, and maintenance procedures.
The design team, at a minimum, should consist of a certified architect and a structural
engineer.
The role of the quality assurance team is to ensure that the design criteria and the
preliminary and final plans meet the required performance objectives and the building
code requirements. The quality assurance team should consist of at least one structural
engineer familiar with the building code and possessing design experience with respect
to the relevant hazards.
2. Compile and analyze design considerations
During this decision-making phase, the architect, structural engineer, and management
team discuss the measures necessary to meet the performance objectives as well as the
school functional considerations.
Review performance objectives, assessment reports, and standards
A careful collaborative review of the performance objectives, assessment data, and the ap-
propriate site or structural assessment reports will facilitate the establishment of the final
design criteria. During this review the design team should identify any general constraints
or opportunities identified in the assessment reports and posed by the building code or
retrofit standards.
Performance Objectives: The performance objectives are the ultimate safety criteria which
the design is intended to achieve. The performance objectives and their justifications
should be thoroughly discussed and agreed upon by all those participating in the design
process. Site, structural, financial, resource or other constraints may necessitate a revi-
sion of the performance objectives. All performance objectives must, at a minimum, protect
lives.
Assessment Data: The hazard characteristics and site and structure vulnerabilities provide
the information necessary to effectively apply the building code and retrofit standards in
order to meet the performance objectives. Any mitigation measures proposed in the site
or structural assessments should also be discussed.
Building Codes and retrofit guidelines: The design and quality assurance teams should
be familiar with the appropriate sections of the building code or retrofit guidance. If these
pose important constraints to other design factors, the management team will need either
to reprioritize the design requirements or work with the design team to identify an alterna-
tive solution.
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 56 /
Design Life: An essential criterion when designing a building is its intended lifespan.
Design life is the projected period in years for which a building is expected to meet the
designated requirements if proper use and maintenance are ensured. A common design
life is 50 years. The designated design life of the building will influence the selection of
appropriate building materials and technologies and the capital and recurring costs.
SIMPLICITY! Complicated designs are much more difficult to ensure structural in-
tegrity and tend to cost a lot more. Simple designs require less builder training and
engineering expertise, they are more easily maintained, and they demonstrate techniques
that can realistically be transferred to houses and other local buildings.
Some particular considerations when designing retrofit solutions
A retrofit plan, unlike a new school design, must take into account the conditions and
characteristics of an existing building and the demands of integrating new components
into its structural system. As the existing system may not have been constructed to meet
building codes, retrofitting plans should begin with the minimum performance objective of
life safety, and only when feasible should other performance objectives be considered.
As it may not be possible to accurately assess the resistant capacity of all of a building’s
materials and components, the development of effective retrofit solutions may rely largely
on the design team’s experience and judgment in applying appropriate techniques. This is
particularly the case when retrofitting buildings to resist earthquake forces.
Therefore, consideration should be given to other design criteria, but no safety measure
should be forfeited at the cost of incorporating other non-safety related features. At the
same time, repairs and renovations which meet identified needs of the school community
and enhance the aesthetic quality of the building, without jeopardizing its safety, can help
to foster community support for retrofitting.
Define design criteria
Defining the design criteria is a decision-making process in which the performance objec-
tives and all other criteria are prioritized and considered with respect to cost, feasibility
and any other constraints. It is the responsibility of the management team to define the
design criteria. It is the role of the design team to provide initial guidance on the technical
feasibility, estimated cost and potential timeframe necessary to meet the proposed criteria.
A transparent discussion of expectations, constraints and opportunities will help to foster
constructive participation throughout the design and implementation stages. Figure 11
outlines several key design criteria to consider.
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 57
Figure 11: Key design criteria for consideration
Capacity of skilled workforce: Designs incorporating hazard resistant features that build on
existing workforce skills and employ familiar and accessible materials can be more easily adopted
by local builders. When builders understand the added value of these features, hazard resistant
technologies can become a marketable skill and be applied beyond the school. In addition, school
maintenance is more sustainable when the required skills and materials are locally available.
Please see Appendix 3 for references on alternative building
materials and hazard resistant design
Availability of materials: In addition to facilitating future maintenance of a building, specifying
locally available materials in the design can greatly decrease the cost of transporting materials to
remote school locations. Transport costs may be so high that it becomes preferable to simplify the
design in order to employ local materials and still meet the performance objectives.
Teaching and Learning: Safer schools are not just shelters, but functioning learning environments.
Any school space should reflect the pedagogy embraced and stimulate learning and teaching. A
review of current teaching and learning practices and careful consultation with school personnel,
students, and education specialists will help to identify these requirements. This may also be an
opportune time to discuss design implications on new education initiatives, such as multi-grade or
double shift pedagogies which may not benefit from more traditional designs built to accommodate
a teacher-centered learning style. For retrofit plans, understanding these requirements will help you
to identify mitigation measures which comply with these requirements. Non structural components
such as furniture, chalkboards, laboratory and sports equipment should be considered. Where
school infrastructure standards exist, they can provide valuable design guidance.
Please see Appendix 3 for references on design criteria
for teaching and learning environments
Cultural Values: School buildings that reflect a community’s values or identity are less “foreign”.
“Familiarity” of a building may not only enhance community ownership of the building but improve
the learning environment.
Latrines and Drinking Water: Schools should be designed to have latrines and drinking water ac-
cessible to the entire school population. Consideration should be given to ensure that latrines remain
functional and do not pose a secondary hazard in the event of flooding. Separate latrines should be
designed for males and females.
Access & Evacuation: Depending on the hazards to which a school is exposed, appropriate
response procedures may entail evacuation of the building. The sudden onset of an earthquake or
flash flood can cause panic, especially if appropriate response training has not been conducted. This
Continues
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 58 /
Figure 11:
(Continues)
3. Review existing plans (for new construction only)
A good point of departure for developing appropriate designs is the review of existing
school designs. Within the collection of designs may be found one or more designs which
meet, or require only a few modifications to comply with, the building codes and school
functional design requirements. Beyond the government there are a broad number of enti-
ties which contribute to the education sector through the construction of schools. It may
be worth collecting these plans as well.
can lead to unpredictable behavior and potential blockage of an exit. A design rule of thumb is that
each space should have a minimum of two evacuation points. It is equally important to ensure that
these exits lead away from potentially dangerous environments and are accessible to individuals with
special needs.
Accessibility for Special Needs: Design requirements should include accommodation for all
students, school personnel and visitors including those with visual, audio or mobility impairments.
Features such as door widths, walkways and ramps should be designed to accommodate all mem-
bers of the school population and provide “barrier-free” access to the learning environment and
evacuation to safety.
Please see Appendix 3 for references on inclusive school design
Internal Environmental Factors: Physical discomfort is a proven obstacle to learning. Attention
should be given to internal temperature and lighting when choosing construction materials and posi-
tioning windows and doors. If electrical lighting or temperature control systems are to be installed,
these must be detailed within the plans and meet the performance objectives.
Environmental Impact: Certain building technologies and materials can contribute to the deterio-
ration of the environment. Much of the risk of landslides can be contributed to uncontrolled logging
on mountain slopes, and development of many coastal areas has resulted in the deterioration of sand
dunes that serve to deter erosion. Consideration should be given to the source, composition and
expected life span of building materials as well as the energy efficiency of the design.
Conflict zones: In conflict areas, schools may be targeted for large or small-scale attacks. In many
areas, school children are abducted from schools and forced into military service. Schools in these
areas should be designed to protect students from abduction and attacks and consideration given
to creating a less conspicuous structure.
Future School Development: If the future development of schools is envisioned, this must be
reflected in the design and positioning of school buildings. Special attention should be given to
ensure sufficient space between buildings
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 59
4. Develop a design
Schematic, or concept, plan
From the defined design criteria, the structural engineer and architect develop a plan which
defines how the design criteria will be met. If certain criteria cannot be met, justification
for their exclusion should also be furnished. This plan should not focus on details, but
provide a broad overall understanding of the design and include an overall cost estimate.
For retrofitting efforts, it is preferable to provide several potential solutions with respective
cost and time estimates.
Funding: If funding for implementation has not yet been secured, it is typically at
this stage that a plan is developed to solicit funding. In 2009, the government of
Haiti received a 5 million dollar grant for emergency school reconstruction. One of the
key deliverables is a National Action Plan for Safer Schools. This plan, developed by the
Ministry of National Education and Professional Training, in collaboration with other part-
ners, will serve to secure future funding for wider scale school construction and retrofitting
(World Bank, 2009).
It is presently outside the scope of this document to discuss strategies for acquiring fund-
ing. However several references to resources can be found in Appendix 3.
Please see Appendix 3 for references on financing safer schools
Full detailed Plan
Once the schematic design is approved by the management and quality assurance team,
a detailed design plan is created. The quality assurance team must approve each struc-
tural and non-structural component of the design, and rigorously review the materials and
methods specified to ensure these meet the designated performance objectives. An up-
dated and detailed estimate of costs required to implement the design should also be
prepared.
Figure 12:
Seismic Resistant School with
safe play area in Aceh, Indonesia
Photo Courtesy and copyright of SC-USA/Construction
Quality and Technical Assistance Unit
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 60 /
5. Create construction documents
Essential to the design process is the development of documents to guide the construc-
tion, supervision, use and maintenance of the school building. The following documents
should be prepared:
Construction/Retrofitting guidelines: The construction or retrofitting guidelines provide
detailed instructions on the materials to use and how they are to be used to meet the
design specifications.
Inspection guidelines: The inspection guidelines define the stages at which inspections
should be conducted and the criteria for approval.
Operational manual: The operational manual indicates how a building should or shouldn’t
be used (e.g. maximum capacity) in order to ensure it functions as designed. Included
within the operational manual should be instructions on preventing damage and loss due
to non-structural components of the building (e.g. book shelves, desks, etc…)
Maintenance plan: The maintenance plan determines how and when the building and its
components should be assessed and replaced or repaired.
6. Define a schedule and sequence of work (for retrofitting or
reconstruction).
As retrofitting and reconstruction can potentially disturb normal school operations and
expose students to construction hazards, a work plan should be developed with school
officials to minimize disruption. Several strategies that have been tested are:
Scheduling work outside of operating hours, such as during evenings, weekends
and school breaks.
Rescheduling school operations to accommodate work
Transferring students to neighboring schools
Erecting transitional school structures
If extensive work is required to retrofit a larger school, an incremental approach can be
taken. Incremental retrofitting is the process of dividing the work into manageable stages
over a longer period of time (FEMA 395, 2002). These stages can be prioritized; identify-
ing more vulnerable elements for initial treatment. Although this strategy does minimize
disruption and spread costs out over a long period of time, it does require longer term
planning and is not recommended for highly vulnerable buildings.
Please see Appendix 3 for references on retrofitting
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 61
4.7.3 key Points to consider
Make the school construction or retrofit into a permanent learning experience for
the community
From assessment to future maintenance, each phase of a hazard resilient school
construction or retrofit project provides powerful learning opportunities that can
serve not only the school, but the broader community. Suggested below are sev-
eral strategies to engage the school and community
Identify school principal or other school-based individual as designated bridge
to make the school construction process a learning process for all stakeholders
in the local community, including children, parents, staff, local government and
the local skilled workforce, in particular.
Use blow-up illustrations of design options to involve school community in de-
sign decision-making
Hold public meetings to ensure that broader school community understands
the design considerations and their concerns are represented during the design
decision-making.
These learning experiences should continue through the construction or retrofit
implementation. Additional strategies are highlighted in Section 4.8.3.
Inspection guidelines, construction documents and detailed plans can be used to
develop training programs for builders, engineers, and the school community.
Safer Construction of temporary schools for early recovery efforts:
Ensuring that vulnerabilities are not replicated
Temporary, or transitional, schools are needed when there are no safe alternative teach-
ing and learning facilities available. They often accommodate large numbers of children,
enabling them to return to school as quickly as possible while permanent solutions are
explored. While they are an ‘emergency provision’, measures must still be taken to ensure
that temporary shelters do not pose a further risk to children and teachers.
Challenges
Temporary schools, established in the immediate aftermath of an emergency, may face ad-
ditional risks. For instance, where an earthquake has occurred, buildings in the surround-
ing areas are more fragile and continually impacted by aftershocks.
The availability of materials and the skilled capacity to assess potential sites and design
safer temporary shelters is often limited. Those usually responsible and technically skilled
in providing shelter are often consumed with attending to the shelter needs of the wider
community.
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 62 /
General considerations when siting, designing and constructing temporary
schools
The principles that guide the establishment of temporary and permanent schools are much
the same, and these Guidance Notes can and should be utilized to strengthen safer con-
struction of temporary schools in early recovery efforts. However, there are additional con-
siderations for temporary schools that must be taken into account to enhance the safety
of those who use them.
Site:
School is at a safe distance from the construction of the permanent structure/building
works.
The distance between the school and the community/care givers is not too far and
will not increase chance of separation. Ideally the school should be located within the
community or near other Child protection/recreation activities.
After a disaster, it is especially important that children feel safe in the temporary struc-
ture and surrounding environment
Structure:
The temporary structure can be easily and quickly dismantled if relocation is needed.
A school committee knows how to quickly dismantle the school and re-erect it in an
alternative location if needed, without putting anyone’s safety at risk.
As temporary schools may provide service throughout various seasons, the structure
should be easy to adapt to different climatic conditions.
Who to consult:
Local authorities (including Ministry of Education)
Teachers
Parents
Children
Community
Local skilled workforce
Representatives from other sector-
specific disaster assistance initiatives
(including sector coordination groups
and/or clusters on water and sanita-
tion, logistics, shelter provision, health,
etc…)
Please see Appendix 3 for
references to resources on
temporary/transitional schools
Figure 13:
Temporary Schools of Timber
and Corrugated Iron, Pakistan
Copyright: USAID/Kaukab Jhumra Smith
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 63
4.8 ASSuRING quALITY OF CONSTRuCTION AND
RETROFIT WORkS
What is the
objective of this
step?
To construct a new hazard resilient school or retrofit an existing school to
higher safety standards.
What is the
purpose?
To assure careful adherence to the engineered design during its realization in
order to achieve its capacity to resist damage and better protect lives.
How does this step
relate to others?
This step is the manifestation of the planning, assessment, and design pro-
cesses outlined in the preceding steps.
4.8.1 Introduction
When buildings that have been designed to meet hazard resistant standards fail, the most
common cause of the failure is a poor quality of implementation or deterioration due to in-
adequate maintenance. Reasons for low quality implementation are poor, non-transparent
management, insufficient supervision and inspection, and inadequate building skills. In-
adequate maintenance of school facilities is most commonly due to a lack of necessary
funding and/or local skilled resources. In order to realize the performance objectives de-
fined for a new or retrofit school, each of these potential issues must be considered and
strategies identified to prevent them.
4.8.2 How do you it?
1. Develop, document, and apply well-defined terms of references
Defining and clearly communicating terms of references for all processes and procedures
will facilitate an efficient work flow and prevent any misunderstandings which could jeop-
ardize the quality, or even completion of the project.
The following items should be clearly-defined, discussed and understood by those respon-
sible for the management of the overall project, the supervision and inspection of work,
and the execution of work:
Roles and responsibilities
Communication and accountability channels
Project deliverables and liability
Schedule of work and payments
Quality assurance mechanisms
Monitoring and evaluation system
A well designed monitoring and evaluation system can greatly assist project managers
to quickly identify any unexpected obstacles or conflicts that will require a change in the
project terms of references. Proposed changes should be documented and reviewed by
all parties.
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 64 /
2. Identify and implement mechanisms to ensure transparency
Strategies that ensure transparency of management and procurement processes and
make project information publicly available, not only limit potentially corrupt practices, but
can instill public confidence in the project and support a community’s sense of ownership.
Strategies to ensure transparency may include:
Project budgets, financing and procurement decisions to be discussed publicly
and displayed on village information boards;
Community-based independent committee to oversee contracts and implemen-
tation;
Journalists, NGOs and students could be invited to audit procurements;
The establishment of an anonymous complaints mechanism which channels them
to project authorities (Kenny, 2007).
3. Develop and provide training for builders
There are many approaches to providing skills training in hazard resistant building tech-
niques. How these trainings are designed and conducted will depend on the existing
capacity of the skilled workforce, the scale of the overall project, and the training resources
available. Information collected on the existing capacity of builders and the construction/
retrofit guidelines will guide the development of a training program.
Learning by doing
The most effective training approaches include extensive hands-on components in which
new techniques are demonstrated and training participants practice these techniques un-
der the guidance of experts.
Large-scale trainings
The National Society for Earthquake Technology (NSET) in Nepal has conducted large-
scale trainings for masons (see adjoining case study). Due to the success of these efforts,
a mason exchange program was designed with the Indian NGO, SEEDS. Nepali masons
were sent to Gujarat, India to peer-mentor local masons in earthquake resistant practices.
Figure 14: Masons learning hazard
resilient building practices in Uttar Pradesh
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 65
These trainings combined both theory and
practice for an effective technology transfer
(NSET, 2007).
Local on-site training
In this common approach, local builders are
hired to carry out the school construction
or retrofit works. Their training occurs on-
the-job under the supervision of the project
engineer and other skilled builders. Save
the Children’s Tsunami Rehabilitation and
Reconstruction program - Aceh and Nias,
which has retrofit 58 school buildings, used an on-the-job cascading approach. Save
the Children engineers supervised and trained five national engineers and 30 local skilled
tradesmen during the retrofit of two model schools. Once completed, one engineer and
six builders were sent to each of five other schools to carry out the retrofitting works and
train builders from those school communities (Shrestha, 2009).
Providing some form of certification, nationally-recognized or otherwise, that notes a build-
er’s capacity to perform hazard-resilient building techniques can provide local builders
with an advantage when competing for future work.
Nepali NGO and local government train skilled tradesmen
NSET, the National Society for Earthquake Technology, partnering with local authorities
and the Lutheran World Federation, trained 601 masons, carpenters, bar benders and
construction supervisors in earthquake safety construction techniques. The theoretical
and hands-on trainings took place over a period of five months.
As a result, participants from Kathmandu and five other municipalities formed working
groups to enhance and promote their new skills and train other professionals in their re-
spective municipalities. Municipality authorities presently support the working groups and
consider the initiative an important milestone towards the goal of increasing the use of
building codes.
Source: http://www.nset.org.np/nset/php/trainings.php
Please see Appendix 3 for references on builder skills training
Figure 15: Seismic Retrofit of Indonesian
school
Copyright of UNCRD SESI Project
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 66 /
4. Ensure compliance to the design requirements
Supervision
However simple the design may be, regular supervision of the work by a qualified engineer
must be incorporated into the work plan. Well-detailed construction/retrofit guidelines
can aid trained builders in meeting the design requirements, but unexpected obstacles
will arise and require guidance. This is especially true for retrofitting efforts, where the
conditions of older buildings must be accounted for. Engaging an on-site, qualified struc-
tural engineer to supervise all work is a highly recommended approach. When this is not
feasible, regularly supervisory visits at each new stage of work should be scheduled to
ensure good building practices.
Inspections
Effective inspection requires that inspectors be trained engineers possessing a detailed
understanding of the design, the building code, and the performance objectives. It is
advisable that inspectors are engaged independently of the procurement process. One
approach is that taken by the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) (Education for All project) of
2006-07, in which the Elementary Education Department of Government of Uttar Pradesh,
India, trained two junior engineers of the Rural Engineering Service in each district to carry
out supervisory and inspection functions while delegating the construction management
to school principles and Village Education Committees (Bhatia, 2008).
To increase efficiency and effectiveness, inspections should be planned for the completion
of a job of work, and prior to the next stage rather than at fixed periods of time. Document-
ing and reviewing the overall inspection plan with the construction managers and builders
will help to prevent costly and time-consuming implementation errors. The plan should
include the stages of work that will require inspection, the criteria for approval, and any
tests required. All inspections must be documented and approved before further work is
initiated and any modifications to the design must be approved by the design team and the
school construction manager.
Third party monitoring
Experience suggests that third party monitoring systems add great value to an inspection
program. School community audits can be very effective when community members are
trained to recognize both weak and strong building practices. If a community audit body
is to be organized, they will need to be given the authority to immediately stop any work if
design requirements are not met. Another means of engaging the community in assuring
project quality is by establishing a mechanism by which individuals can anonymously post
complaints. For more complex designs, a technically qualified independent inspection
body can be engaged to review, test and approve critical features of the design during its
implementation.
4
Suggested steps towards greater safety of school buildings
/ Page 67
5. Establish a school maintenance program
To ensure the school building performs as per its expectations during its design life and
beyond, it is essential that a maintenance program is established.
A strong school maintenance program has three main components: organization, inspec-
tion, and maintenance plan.
Organization – A basic organizational structure would include a general
coordinator and individuals or teams responsible for particular areas of the
school. If the school maintenance budget is insufficient to carry out the main-
tenance tasks, a fund-raising coordinator should also be identified. It is ad-
visable to draw from students and members throughout the community to fill
these roles.
Maintenance Plan – The maintenance plan is comprised of the scheduling of
inspections, the parties responsible, points of inspection and the corrective
measures to be taken if an issue arises.
Inspection – A final assessment at the completion of the construction or
retrofitting works will serve as a baseline for all future inspections. If issues
identified during regular inspections beyond the capacity of the maintenance
team to address or if the building has undergone major changes (such as
damage induced by a hazard event), a qualified inspector/engineer should
be consulted (Bastidas, 1998)
The recurring cost of maintenance will vary on the design and age of the school and the
availability of resources required to carry out repairs. In general, an annual maintenance
budget should be between 1 and 2% of the capital cost. Embedding recurring mainte-
nance costs into the school construction/retrofitting budget will provide the longer term
support required to maintain a safe learning environment.
Quite commonly the school community is delegated the responsibility of maintaining the
school facilities. It is advisable to review the maintenance and reporting tasks with the
responsible community organization and, if needed, facilitate the establishment of roles,
responsibilities, and documentation and reporting mechanisms.
The cost of rebuilding a deteriorated school is much greater than the cost of maintaining
one.
Please see Appendix 3 for references to resources on managing
building maintenance
4
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Page 68 /
4.8.3 key Points to consider
The construction or retrofitting of a school building is a valuable educational oppor-
tunity with the potential to further strengthen community ownership of the school
and demonstrate hazard-resilient techniques that can be replicated in homes and
other buildings. Following are several strategies to encourage interest, participa-
tion and enthusiasm amongst the community in learning how buildings can be
made to resist hazards.
Organize public visits to the site in which explanations are given of the hazard
resilient components of the building and simple retrofitting techniques are dem-
onstrated can encourage replication of these techniques in houses and other
buildings in the area.
Be sure that construction can be viewed from a safe distance with explanatory
signs
Display photos charting the progress of the work and the development of the
hazard-resistant school and displayed in a public space. Clearly identify all
hazard resistant features.
Discuss with school community how these principles can be applied to other
construction in the community.
Identify frequent dangers in local construction practices and involve students,
teachers and engineers in identifying these and raising awareness in the local
community about disaster resistant design and construction practices.
Awareness-raising campaigns in surrounding areas can bring members of other
school communities to view and learn how buildings can be constructed or retrofit
to better protect their occupants.
Beyond the engagement of skilled local builders, students, youth and adults can
contribute by collecting, preparing and delivering building materials to the work
site and providing labor. Apprenticeships can initiate new livelihoods for youth;
instilling safer building practices in future builders. Schools built and owned by
communities are much less likely to be left to deteriorate.
Page 69 /
Basic Design Guidelines
This section of the guidance notes consists of a number of basic design guidelines with
respect to the following hazards:
Earthquake (to include notes on tsunami)
Windstorms (to include notes on storm surge)
Flooding
Landslides
Wildfires
For each hazard type, basic design guidelines will cover where appropriate:
Site considerations and modifications
Design & Construction
Precautions for non-structural components
Precautions for future development
For each hazard type, references to technical resources, design and construction guide-
lines, and case studies are listed in Appendix 3.
This section is meant solely to provide the reader with a very basic understanding of
hazard resistant design principles applicable to load bearing wall and framed build-
ings. These are not intended to be used as building code as they do not provide detailed
specifications. Furthermore, this is not an exhaustive list of potential mitigation measures
as these will vary greatly depending on the site-specific hazards and building typologies.
In addition, these are only indicators and should not be used as criteria to assess existing
structures or to modify the design of new structures. Confirmation of the need to change
the design or to retrofit requires review by a qualified structural engineer.
5
Page 70 /
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
5
TERMINOLOGY
Load: A type of force which acts on a building or some element of the building. Dead
loads consist of the weight of the building elements that a structure must support. The
roof, for example, is a dead load. Live loads are other additional forces which act on a
building. People using a building are considered live loads. The forces on a building
caused by wind, water and ground shaking are also examples of live loads.
Load path: How forces on one structural component are subsequently transferred to
other elements
Structural Components:
Elements of a building which are designed to support any
loads on a building.
Non Structural Components:
Elements that are not part of the load-bearing system
of the building. This may include false ceiling, fixtures, furniture etc
Wall bearing construction: In wall bearing construction, the walls support horizon-
tal structural members like beams which support the roof or an additional storey.
Framed construction: In framed construction, a structural frame is built to support all
other elements of the building. A framed building should be designed so that any loads
on the building are transferred to the frame. Frames are made of structural elements
such as columns and beams. In frame construction, walls do not carry any loads and
are commonly called infill or curtain walls.
Robustness: Applies to a building’s structural system. It’s a structure’s ability to with-
stand stresses, pressures, or changes in circumstance. A building may be called “ro-
bust” if it is capable of coping well in its operating environment due to any minimal
damage, alteration or loss of functionality (Bhakuni).
Integrity: Applies to materials in use. Integrity is a term which refers to the quality of
being whole and complete, or the state of being unimpaired (Bhakuni).
Stability: Applies to various building elements (such as columns, walls, beams, etc…)
which maintain equilibrium for a building to stand (Bhakuni).
/ Page 71
Basic Design Guidelines
5
5.1 EARTHquAkES (TO INCLuDE TSuNAMI)
An earthquake can be caused by the shifting of tectonic plates or by volcanic activity. Geo-
graphic areas which lie above the meeting of these plates are generally the most prone to
earthquakes. The ground shaking is due to a wave-like force travelling through the earth’s
surface and its effects will vary based on the geological characteristics of a given area.
This wave-like force may also cause other events. When the source of an earthquake lies
under water, the force moving through the water can cause tsunamis, or tidal waves. The
ground shaking on land can also induce other events such as landslides and shifting of
various ground layers.
During an earthquake, the ground movement induces lateral, or horizontal, and vertical
loads on a building. A lateral load is similar to the back-and-forth forces the driver of a ve-
hicle will feel when he comes to a sudden stop or accelerates quickly. These forces cause
the driver’s body to bend forwards or backwards or to shift in place.
As the force of an earthquake causes the ground to move like a wave, the ground will also
push up on one side of the building and force down the other side of the building creating
an overturning load.
Lateral load
Inertia force
Seismic force
Inertia force
Seismic force
Overturning load
Uplift load
Because of inertia, the
movement of the ground and
foundation in one direction
creates a force on the roof in
the opposite direction
Page 72 /
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
5
Earthquakes—Site Considerations and Modification
Select site as far as possible from known earthquake fault lines.
E1.
Select site that minimizes or prevents potential harm due to earthquake-induced
E2.
landslides.
Select site composed of firmest sub-soil available.
E3.
Softer sub-soils amplify ground motion which will be transferred to foundations and school
structures. Weak sub-soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. Soil liquefaction is a phe-
nomenon which occurs when solid soils under pressure take on a liquefied state thus
causing the ground to move. Soil liquefaction can damage foundations and even cause
collapse of the foundation and the building.
Select site where ground water level is well below the foundation level
E4.
Allow for sufficient space between buildings
E5.
It is important, particularly when constructing in urban areas, to allow for sufficient space
between buildings. If separation between buildings is not considered, the ground shaking
may cause the buildings to pound against each other and cause serious damage.
In tsunami-prone areas, select site at elevation above that of maximum potential
E6.
wave height.
Identify potential evacuation routes and access routes for emergency services.
E7.
Consider the proximity of structures in surrounding areas that may serve as a
E8.
shelter for those displaced in emergencies.
Earthquakes—Design and Construction
Design structural elements to be symmetrical and evenly spread over the plan
E9.
of the building.
The asymmetry of structural elements can result in damaging ‘twisting’ forces. Struc-
tural layouts, such as U- and L-shaped buildings, amplify these twisting forces and their
inside corners are particularly vulnerable to damage. These types of structures should be
avoided. If such layouts are desired, it is preferable to design several distinct symmetrical
buildings oriented in such a way as to produce similar results.
SAFEST DESIGN
POOR DESIGN
/ Page 73
Basic Design Guidelines
5
Design building to be vertically regular with respect to lateral stiffness and weight
E10.
distribution.
For schools with more than one storey, the capacity for the structure to resist lateral forces
should be the same for each floor. A common cause of damage to multiple-storied build-
ings is “soft-storey” collapse. This occurs because the lateral stiffness or shear strength of
one story, typically the ground level, is less than that of the upper stories.
An uneven distribution of mass at higher levels of a structure can also amplify the lateral
load caused by an earthquake. Therefore lighter roofs are preferable and any heavy equip-
ment such as water tanks, should, when possible, be located independently of the struc-
ture.
When one storey is
less laterally resistant
than stories above it,
it is more likely
to collapse
POOR DESIGN
SAFEST DESIGN
POOR
DESIGN
SAFEST
DESIGN
Vertical irregularity
Vertical regularity
Uneven distribution of mass
Even distribution of mass
Page 74 /
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
5
Ensure all structural elements are securely connected together.
E11.
Connections between all walls, floors and roofs are crucial stress points and must be de-
signed to be stronger than the connecting elements. This is particularly important where
diaphragms are connected to shear walls and beams to columns. Each element of the box
relies on the other elements and therefore they must be securely fastened to each other.
It is equally essential that the structural system is firmly fastened to the foundation. If the
building is not sufficiently secured to the foundation, it may shift or slide off.
Design and build to resist lateral loads from all directions.
E12.
A rigid box is an ideal structural design to resist the lateral loads induced by an earthquake.
This design is applicable to both bearing wall construction and frame construction. In bear-
ing wall buildings, the walls, floors and roofs are the structural components which should
be configured to form this box. In framed buildings, the columns, beams, and other frame
members should be configured to form this box. Characteristics of this rigid box design will
be discussed for both types of construction.
Bearing wall construction
In wall bearing construction, a wall that is parallel to a lateral load it is called a side wall.
The lateral force on the side wall will place pressure on the top unless it is designed to
resist the force. When a side wall is designed, built, or retrofit to act as a stiff, integrated
whole which resists lateral forces, it is called a shear wall. The use of sufficiently strong
mortar in brick or block construction is one means of enhancing a wall’s lateral resis-
tance.
If this stiffness is insufficient relative to the load, the building will sustain damage and pos-
sibly collapse.
Seismic force
Seismic force
Laterally stiffened side wall
resists deformation
Insufficient lateral stiffness
causes side wall to deform
Potential seismic loads
/ Page 75
Basic Design Guidelines
5
As the direction of these lateral loads cannot be predicted, the shear strength must be
considered for loads from any direction. Therefore all walls should be designed to resist
lateral loads.
A wall which is perpendicular to a load is called a face-loaded wall. A face-loaded wall
responds differently than side walls. Face-loaded walls, unless securely braced from side
to side and top to bottom, will overturn.
As shear walls help to brace face-loaded walls and stop them from overturning, the cor-
ners where they meet should be reinforced.
Long face-loaded walls will require additional interior shear walls to resist overturning or
bending and eventual collapse.
Horizontal structural components which tie all four walls together such as a floor, roof, or
upper storey are called diaphragms. Diaphragms further support a face-loaded wall and
transfer the load down to the shear walls, or in the case of a floor, directly to the founda-
tion or ground.
In wall-bearing buildings, rigid horizontal reinforcement that encircles the building can act
to resist deformation and damage to a wall caused by uplift, downward and lateral forces
(when tied to vertical reinforcement). Any system of providing this reinforcement must form
a continuous ring around the building and must be securely fastened to all vertical struc-
tural elements (such as columns and reinforced corners).
Seismic load
Seismic load
Face-loaded
wall
Insufficient bracing causes
face-loaded wall to overturn
Shear wall
supports face
loaded wall to
resist
overturning
POOR DESIGN
GOOD DESIGN
Seismic load
Seismic load
Shear wall
added to support
long wall
Longer walls will
bend and possibly
collapse without
sufficient shear wall
support
Page 76 /
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
5
To ensure that the load on a diaphragm is correctly transferred to the supporting
E13.
walls, it must be rigid and act as a single element and it must be securely at-
tached to the walls. An example of a rigid diaphragm would be a reinforced
roof or a concrete slab floor. All walls should be securely attached to all dia-
phragms.
Minimize openings in bearing wall construction
E14.
Shear walls should extend from the floor to the roofline. Openings in the wall, such as
doors and windows, reduce a shear wall’s resistive capacity (particularly in the proximity
of corners). Reinforcement of door and window frames will strengthen these critical weak
points. Minimize openings in diaphragms as well.
Frame construction
In frame construction, the columns and beams can be joined to create a box-like struc-
ture.
As the columns and beams joined together must resist the lateral loads, their joints must
be made substantially rigid so as to maintain the box-like form. These joints are a criti-
cal point and must be securely fastened such that the joint is stronger than the structural
members. Diagonal bracing can further increase the structure’s lateral resistance
If securely connected to the
diaphragms (floor and roof),
the shear wall will limit their
movement
The lateral force will pressure
the roof and floor to move in
opposing directions
Seismic force
Foundation
Ring beams at top of walls
Ring beam at top of doors, windows and
other openings (lintel level)
Ring beam where building meets foundation
(plinth level)
Rigid horizontal reinforcement to resist uplift and downward loads:
Beams
Columns
/ Page 77
Basic Design Guidelines
5
Increase resiliency of structure through use of ductile technology and materials
E15.
Ductility is the characteristic of a structure or its components which allow them to bend
or deform when under a given force. When a lateral force exceeds a structure’s lateral
stiffness, rather than immediately collapsing, a ductile structure will absorbe some of that
force by deforming. Although damage will be sustained, more serious damage and pos-
sible collapse may be avoided. Certain steel reinforcement used in concrete construction
acts to increase the ductile capacity of columns and walls.
Brittle materials, connections, and overall structures do not dissipate a load’s energy and
thus are more prone to fracture and collapse. It is important that the use of ductile materials
and the design of ductile structures be approved by a structural engineer. Designed incor-
rectly, a ductile structure or structural component can result in extreme structural damage.
Even ductile structures and materials will fracture when under the stress of larger loads.
Allow for expansion between structural columns and infill walls
E16.
In frame construction, walls, often called curtain or infill walls, do not bear any loads.
Where columns and beams are designed to resist seismic loads, movement joints must
exist between infill walls and frame to allow the two elements to move independently and
prevent the wall from cracking. However, solid infill such as brick walls must be tied back
to the structure to avoid a collapse which may endanger the occupants.
If joints are not
sufficiently rigid, frames
cannot resist lateral
loads
Diagonal bracing
increases the lateral
resistance of frames
A correctly-designed
ductile structure will
deform before fracturing
Lateral load
Frame
Infill wall
Lateral load
When using
diagonal bracing,
remember to
consider lateral
resistance of all
planes
Infill walls tied back
to structure
Expansion joints allow movement of frames under stress without inducing damage
Page 78 /
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
5
Design all elements to transfer loads directly to the ground.
E17.
To reduce the damage caused by lateral loads, structures must be designed to transfer all
loads directly to the ground.
Vertical framing that does not continue to the foundation is a critical weak spot.
Gable walls must be braced to their full height
E18.
Gables are the portion of the side of a building which rises from the bottom edges of the
roof up to the ridge. In wall bearing construction, gables are called gable walls or gable
ends. Gable walls require additional bracing to the full height of the wall in order to resist
overturning. This might be achieved by fixing diagonal bracing between the gable wall and
roof beams, designing a shear wall which supports the gable wall from within, or construct-
ing a buttress.
Design to resist uplift loads
E19.
Stiffness in shear walls or in a frame should also be designed to resist uplift loads as well
as corresponding downward loads. If sub-soils are soft, soil liquefaction may occur caus-
ing the ground elevation to drop. If the foundation does not rest on solid sub-soil, part or
all of the building may drop as well.
POOR PRACTICE
GOOD PRACTICE
Vertical frames do
not continue to
foundation
Vertical
frames
continue
to foundation
Gable
Gable
integrated into
roof structure
Gable
supported by
shear wall
Gable
supported by
buttress
Uplift load
Soil
liquefaction
may cause the
ground to give
way beneath
the foundation
/ Page 79
Basic Design Guidelines
5
Earthquakes—Precautions for non-structural components
Firmly attach exterior building elements to structural elements
E20.
Exterior components which cover the building (its windows and door frames and roof and
wall coverings) must also be firmly attached to the structural elements in order to minimize
detachment and possible damage to building or persons outside.
Brace or secure interior non-structural elements of the building to structural ele-
E21.
ments.
Architectural elements such as ceilings, wall covering, and non load-bearing walls should
be fixed securely to the structure to prevent them from falling or collapsing and causing
damage, harm or loss.
Other infrastructure, such as electrical, gas and water supply pose a particular risk in an
earthquake and can cause fire, gas leaks and electrocution. Consider containment, es-
cape routes and isolated safe assembly points.
Secure furnishings and other equipment which could fall and cause harm, dam-
E22.
age or loss
A common and dangerous hazard induced by an earthquake is falling objects. All heavy
furnishings or equipment, both inside and outside of the building, should be securely fixed
to structural elements, or located independently of the building.
Design staircases to resist earthquake loads
E23.
In multi-storey buildings, evacuation may require the use of stairways. To reduce harm
and loss of life to those evacuating a building, staircases should be designed to withstand
earthquake loads.
Earthquakes—Precautions for future development
If future development of site is predicted, space should be allocated on the
E24.
school site so as to ensure sufficient separation between school buildings.
Please see Appendix 3 for references and hyperlinks to good literature,
handbooks, guidebooks, etc.
Page 80 /
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
5
/ Page 81
Basic Design Guidelines
5
5.2 WINDSTORMS
The forces of extreme winds due to cyclones (including tropical storms and typhoons)
induce a variety of loads on a building. In a simple rectangular building, the side of the
building facing the wind is subject to a lateral load. This lateral load pushes this side of
the building inward. The wind blowing around the other sides of the building lowers the
air pressure outside. This drop in pressure creates a suction force which pulls these walls
outwards. The suction force of the wind over the building creates an uplift load on the roof
as well.
These loads may be increased or decreased based on the pressure within the building. If
more air is allowed to pass through the wall facing the wind (via broken windows, severed
doors, and any existing openings) the air pressure within the building will increase. This
increase in air pressure inside the building will force the walls outwards. This will increase
the outward pressure already exerted on the side and rear walls and roof.
If more air is allowed to pass through the rear and side walls, the building is depressur-
ized and air from within is sucked out of the building. This suction pressure pulls the side
Suction pulls side
walls outward
Suction pulls rear wall
outward
Suction creates uplift
load on roof
Lateral load pushing inward
Wind
Outward loads on
side and rear walls
are increased.
Uplift load on the roof
is also increased
Wind
Wind
Suction
Suction decreases
loads on side and
rear walls as well
as roof.
Load on windward
wall is increased
Page 82 /
Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction
5
walls, rear wall and roof inward. This inward force counteracts the suction force of the
wind outside the building. Therefore the load on the side and rear walls and on the roof
are diminished.
Wind is not the only force which acts on a building during storms. They are generally ac-
companied by heavy rains, storm surge and flooding. This can induce heavy damage on
buildings and harm to people.
Windstorms—Site considerations and modifications
Select site with minimum exposure to wind.
W1.
Natural wind blockades such as trees can decrease a buildings exposure to wind, but be
sure that these are not so close as to fall and damage the building. When designing, allow
for some loss of shielding capacity due to stripped leaves and branches.
Decrease proximity of potentially unsafe structures and potentially damaging de-
W2.
bris.
Nearby structures which have not been built to resist strong winds, or potentially damag-
ing debris can act as missiles and damage the building.
Select site at elevation greater than highest flood levels in prior storm surges.
W3.
Consider site selection criteria for other identified hazards such as floods, land-
W4.
slides and earthquakes
Windstorms—Design and Construction
Ensure foundation is sufficiently large and heavy to resist uplift force on build-
W5.
ing.
Ensure foundation is designed, and at a depth, to resist erosion by potential
W6.
storm surge.
Ensure all structural elements are securely connected together and firmly an-