Making Schools

Safe Against

Disaster

David AlexanderUniversity College London

Analysis

• registered• archived• forgotten• ignored

Vulnerabilitymaintained-

• utilised• adopted• learned

Disasterriskreduced

+

LessonsPast

events

The process ofdisaster riskreduction(DRR)

ResilienceResistance

Risk Susceptibility

Physical(including natural,built, technological)

Social(including cultural,political, economic

EnvironmentAtt

ribut

es

Source: McEntire 2001

Liabilities

Capa

bilities

VULNERABILITY

Organisationalsystems:management

Socialsystems:behaviour

Naturalsystems:function

Technicalsystems:

malfunction

VulnerabilityHazard

Resilienc

e

Politicalsystems:decisions

Recoveryand

reconstruction

Mitigationandresilience

Preparationandmobilisation

Emergencyintervention

Quiescence

Crisis

The disastercycle

Disaster goes to school

[Courtesy ofProf. Omar Cardona]

This is a school!

This is another!

The loss of young, innocent livestouches a common thread of sentiment

in people who otherwise have noconnection with the event.

These events elicit massive outpouringsof public sympathy but are symptomatic

of failure to provide a safeenvironment for children's education.

Schooldisasters:

• natural disasters: floods, landslides,tornadoes, storms, earthquakes

• shootings, hostage-takings,other acts of terrorism

• fires, structural collapses.

The problem:-

In the 2003Boumerdes, Algeria,earthquake103 schools collapsed753 were seriouslydamaged and 2160were damaged orotherwise affected.

In the Bingöl earthquake of 1-5-2003in Turkey (0334 hrs, mag. 6.8,duration 17 secs):

• 3 school buildings totally collapsed

• 10 schools were badly damaged

• 12 schools were moderately damaged

• 3 schools were lightly damaged

• 84 boys died while sleeping in aschool dormitory that collapsed(=50% of overall death toll).

Repetitive seismic risk: in Turkey,eight million children attend 34,000 schools

that are vulnerable to seismic damage.

Some of the most seismic countries havesome of the youngest populations

(e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia).

Responsibilities for ensuringsafety are commonly split

between school staffs,education authorities,

municipal engineers andgovernment departments.

It is remarkable howunsophisticated school

emergency preparednessusually is: would

other organisationsof similar complexitypermit such laxity?

If the1994 Northridge,

California, earthquakehad occurred duringschool time, it wouldhave been necessary

to send 6500 childrenhome, but many of

them would not havefound parents there.

• children have a full moral right toeducation and safety at school.

• about one billion children of schoolage live in seismically active countries

• perhaps one third go to seismicallyunsafe schools (and one seventh haveno schools to attend at all)

The global situation:-

Estimate of seismic death tolls in schools:

• over the next decade

• for the 20 most seismic countries

• events of MMI=VIII or greater

• children at school for 6-23%of the year (105-250 days)

• child deaths in collapsed schoolsestimated at 4800 per decade.

• median 100 children per school

• 15-30 earthquakes per year causeschools to collapse, 40% mortality rate

Reality: in the Kashmir earthquake of 200510,000 schools collapsed

17,000 children died in them.

Schoolsafety:

someanswersto the

problem

HOW PEOPLEPERCEIVE RISK

ABILITY TOPERCEIVE RISK

EXPERIENCEWITH RISK

ACCESS TOINFORMATION

ABILITY TOREDUCE RISK:

• money • expertise • knowledge• resources

WHETHERRISK HAS

BEEN ABATED

PEOPLE'S IDEASABOUT POSSIBLE

DAMAGE AND LOSS

PROPENSITYTO DENY RISK

Riskanalysis

Risk assessment

Risk communication

KnowledgePerception

Institutionallearning

Adaptation

Disaster threat

Risk management

The arguments for school safety:

• morality and human rights

• duty of care to children (in loco parentis)

• cost-effectiveness

• the need to provide education

• multiple functions of schools in thecommunity: schools as community centresor shelter for homeless survivors.

• physical hazards (structural & fitments)

• behavioural hazards(what people do in a crisis)

• external hazards that affect thebuilding (such as floods, explosions,earth tremors, landslides, subsidence)

• internal hazards that affect abilityto adopt self-protective behaviour,e.g. fire or collapse of ceilings.

Hazards to schools can be divided into:-

• there is no simple rule for self-protective behaviour in school buildings.

• competitive behaviour among childredengendered by panic-induced flighthas been reported during earthquakesin China, Mexico and Egypt

• when buildings collapse, childrenand teachers are very efficientlycrushed under flimsy desks.

Behavioural factors:-

Evacuation remains the single mosteffective strategy for avoiding danger, but

only if it can be completed in conditionsof relative safety—i.e. rarely

during the main impact or crisisperiod, when there may be:

• distortion of doorways

• overturning or collapse offittings, fixtures and furniture

• severed power lines in puddles outside.

• façade collapse

• the building should not merely giveshelter but also provide refuge

• procedures for vacating schools duringemergencies should lead the occupantsprogressively further away from danger.

Inlocoparentis

Hazards ofevacuation torefuge site

Conve

rgence

reaction

of pare

nts

Convergence reactionof emergency services

Park

ing and

traffic flow

?

Hazard impact to school

Hazards of evacuationto assembly area

Information flow?School

Sharing the burden and developinga sense of commitment:

• teachers have a highly variable levelof interest in emergency planning

• children are an effective channel forgetting hazard and risk info to families

• children also adapt remarkablywell to unfamiliar situations

• education in risk management is needed

• generally, improved communicationis needed regarding school safety.

The destruction of 190 unreinforcedmasonry schools in the Long Beach,

California, earthquake of 10-3-1933(M=6.2) led to the Field Act for theengineering seismic safety of schoolbuildings, which was passed exactlyone month after the earthquake.

The importance of legislation

Procedures for designing school evacuation plans

Emergency planningis not

rocket science...

...it's a matter of common sense...

...and organisation!

Major eventmanagement

Incidentmanagement

Population(community)protection

Hazardforecasting,monitoring,etc.

Plans,procedures,protocols

Human andmaterialresources

(1) Assemble materials• local maps• plan of school• describe school

(2) Describe setting of school• surrounding area• location of nearest emergency services.

(3) Identify and assess local hazards• possible impacts on school

(4) Response scenarios• evacuation routes, with alternatives• assembly points, theirsafety, ease of access

• refuges (churches, communitycentres, etc.) and routes to them.

(5) Procedures• teachers assemble students at primaryassembly point, take attendance

• monitors conduct asweep of the buildings

• evacuation option chosenand implemented

• students taken to secondary assembly point

(6) Which emergency services, in whatorder, from where, and how soon?.

(7) Teachers and head to knowwho incident commander isand what emergency forcesare present or on their way

(8) Procedures used tochoose evacuation options

(9) Conduct evacuation drills• permanent signs (colouredarrows) to exits.

(10) Periodic surveys of access to exits• remove obstacles

(11) Study means of avoiding congestion

(12) Avoid gymnasia or structureswith roofs that could collapseduring an impact.

(13) Evaluate interior hazards

(14) Procedure for posting anddisseminating disaster plans

• ensure that all personnel have read,understood and remembered

• share plans with town officials.

(15) Are all exits safefor use in all cases?

(16) Plan role of school'sfirst-aid officer

(17) Can school be re-enteredafter impact?

• designate rooms for first aid.

(18) Procedure for contacting parentsand safely returning students tothem if school closes

(19) On-site and off-site liabilitycustodial liability (in loco parentis)

(20) Acquaint parents with theschool's evacuation plans andinform them of where theiroffspring can be picked up underparticular evacuation situations.

Conclusions

• like hospitals, schools arecritical facilities of great strategicimportance in disaster situations

• the extent of the risk to them isnot fully appreciated by decision makers

• community involvement canchange risk situations for the better

• the solutions are multi-faceted

• high-priority global security programmesare required, under UN auspices.

Usage and state of maintenanceof buildings change over time butaggregate vulnerability appears

to remain frustratingly constant.

No school should be without aproperly tested emergency plan.

• hazard investigations, school designand the observation of building codes

• school construction,maintenance and improvement

• management and use of schools

• evacuation and the care of children

Common standards are needed for:-

Personalor privateinterestsPublic

interestCultural

acceptability

LESSONS...LEARNED?

Sustainablelessons Uncertainty,

unpredictability

LESSONS...LEARNED?

Incentivesto learn

david.alexander@ucl.ac.ukwww.slideshare.net/dealexanderwww.emergency-planning.blogspot.com