Roadmap for
Safer Schools
guidance note

Global Program For Safer Schools
A Road Map to promote a long-term systematic
approach to improving the safety of school
infrastructure at risk from natural hazards.

2

Contents

Acknowledgments
The preparation of this “Roadmap for Safer Schools” was led by Fernando Ramirez Cortes under the
Global Program for Safe Schools of the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). The
team consisted of Niels B. Holm-Nielsen, Vica Rosario Bogaerts, Oscar Anil Ishizawa, Carina
Fonseca Ferreira, Juan Carlos Atoche, Jesus Gomez Sanchez, and Laisa Daza Obando. The
document was developed by Arup International Development, Hayley Gryc, and Joseph Stables incollaboration with the Global Program for Safer Schools team.
Our particular thanks go to everyone who contributed to the development and review of the Roadmap,
especially Alanna Simpson (Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist, GFDRR-World Bank), Artessa
Saldivar-Sali (Municipal Engineer, World Bank), David Mason (Urban Specialist Consultant, World
Bank), Elif Ayhan (Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist, World Bank), Ko Takeuchi (Disaster Risk
Management Specialist, World Bank), Marc Forni (Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist, World Bank),
Zaruhi Tokhmakhyan (Senior Infrastructure Specialist, World Bank,), Jo da Silva (Director, Arup International Development), Matthew Free (Director, Natural Hazards and Risk, Arup), Damian Grant (Associate,
Seismology and Risk, Arup), Tigran Shmis (Senior Education Specialist, World Bank) and Ines Kudo (Senior
Education Specialist, World Bank).

i

Contentsii

Contents

Contents
Introductionvi

Backgroundvii

Comprehensive School Safety Framework

viii

Understanding Safer SchoolsxDefining a Safe Schoolx

Understanding Riskx

Hazardx

Site Locationxi

Physical Planning

xi

Building Planning

xi

Characteristics of a Safe Schoolxii

Safe School Roadmap

xiv

Purpose of the Roadmap

xiv

Objectivesxiv

Who is it for?

xiv

Structure of the Roadmap

xiv

How to use it?

xvi

Steps 1–5

(See next page)

Steps, Modules, and Activities

Glossary

66

iii

Contents

Step 1
SchoolInfrastructure
Baseline

Step 1 Introduction

1

Module 1

1.1.1 Identify the natural hazards that pose2

Module 2

1.2.1 Create an inventory of existing school infrastructure4

1.2.2 Examine the physical characteristics of

6

1.2.3 Identify existing interventions

8

1.2.4 Identify the schools exposed to the natural hazards

9

1.3.1 Identify the demand new school infrastructure10

1.3.2 Understand government’s school infrastructure plans

12

Step 2 Introduction

15

2.1.1 Identify the planning regulation documents and16

2.1.2 Identify the building regulation documents and18

2.1.3 Map the history of the regulatory documents

20

2.1.4 Identifying the regulatory process

21

2.2.1 Map key stakeholders

22

2.2.2 Identify capacity and capability of key stakeholders

23

2.2.3 Identify procurement and24

2.3.1 Identify typical construction materials

26

2.3.2 Identify school infrastructure designs

28

Step 3 Introduction31

3.1.1 Identify previous investment programs in con-32

3.1.2 Identify previous investment programs for33

3.2.1 Identify current and future investment35

3.2.2 Identify current and future investment programs

36

3.3.1 Identify the funding mechanisms, investment

38

a risk to school infrastructure

existing school infrastructure

Module 3

Step 2
Construction
Environment

Module 1

understand what they cover and exclude
understand what they cover and exclude

Module 2

construction management processes

Module 3

Step 3Financial
Environment

Module 1

struction of new school infrastructure

existing school infrastructure, including thosefor repair/retrofitting and maintenance

Module 2

programs for new school infrastructure(repair/ retrofitting) for existing school infrastructure

Module 3

requirements, and key decision makers

iv

Contents

Step 4
Disaster Risk
Assessment

Step 4 Introduction

41

4.1.1 Define risk assessment objective42

4.1.2 Undertake a hazard analysis

43

4.1.3 Build the exposure model for school infrastructure

45

4.1.4 Build the structural vulnerability

46

Module 2

4.2.1 Carry out disaster risk assessment

48

Module 3

4.3.1 Inform the prioritization processes for risk

50

Step 5 Introduction

53

5.1.1 Enable structural rehabilitation/retrofitting

54

5.1.2 Enable functional rehabilitation

56

5.1.3 Design intervention strategy and57

5.1.4 Undertake cost-benefit analysis

58

5.2.1 Consider planning and design gaps and opportunities

60

5.2.2 Consider regulatory framework improvements

62

5.2.3 Consider implementation process adjustments

64

Module 1component of school infrastructure

Step 5
Safer School
Investment
Opportunities

Module 1

for school infrastructure

reduction in school infrastructure

investment scenarios

Module 2v

Introduction

Introduction
In 2014, the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) launched the Global Programfor Safer Schools (GPSS). Through the GPSS, GFDRR support programs designed to establish safer school
facilities in countries where the government has firmly committed to a reform or investment program in
the education sector. GFDRR provides technical assistance to ensure that such education sector programs
finance safer school facilities.
The aim of the GPSS is to make school facilities, and the communities they serve, more resilient to natural
hazards. The program’s objective is therefore to save lives, reduce the physical impact of natural disasters
on school infrastructure, and minimize the negative educational outcomes resulting from natural
disasters. Activities supported by the program focus on supporting Ministries of Education to avoid thecreation of new risks and reduce existing risks through risk-informed construction and retrofitting ofschool infrastructure.
As part of a partnership with GFDRR, Arup International Development is providing technical support
to GPSS. This includes the development of this guidance note for the preparation of safer school projects
and programs.

viBackground

Background
Each year countries suﬀer great tragedy when natural disasters destroy schools and disrupt children’s
education. In addition to causing immediate harm to children, there is mounting evidence that the direct
impact of natural disasters can translate into a series of indirect long-term eﬀects. For some time, multilateral and bilateral development finance institutions, United Nations (UN) agencies, and nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs) have been engaged in eﬀorts to make schools resilient to natural hazards. Despite
these eﬀorts, however, the safety of school facilities in many disaster-prone countries is unknown, andgovernments and donors continue to finance new school construction without taking suﬃcient accountof safety.

Comprehensive School Safety Framework
The Comprehensive School Safety (CSS) Framework is a global framework in support of two
initiatives: the Worldwide Initiative for Safe Schools and the Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction
and Resilience in the Education Sector1. It was developed in preparation for the third UN World
Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in 2015. The CSS Framework rests on three pillars (figure 1):1/.

Safe learning facilities (school infrastructure).

School disaster management.

Risk reduction and resilience education

For the framework, see UNISDR and Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the
Education Sector, “Comprehensive School Safety,”
http://gadrrres.net/uploads/files/resources/Comprehensive-School-Safety-Framework-Dec-2014.pdf.

vii

Backgroundpillar 1
Safe Learning Facilities
Safe site selection
Building codes
Performance standards
Building
maintenanceDisaster resilient design

Non-structural
mitigation

Construction supervision

Structural safety
education

Builder training

Construction as
educational
opportunity

Quality control

Fire safety

Remodeling
Retrofitpillar 2
School Disaster
Management
Assessment & Planningpillar 3
Risk Reduction andResilience Education

Physical & Environmental Protection

Formal curriculum

Response Skills & Provisions

Integrations & infusion

Representative/participatory

Teacher training & staﬀ development

SDM committee

Consensus-based key messages

Educational continuity plan

Extracurricular & community-based
informal education

Standard operating procedures
Contingency planning

Household disaster plan

Multi-hazard risk assessment

Family reunification plan

Education sector analysis

School drills

Child-centered assessment & planning

figure 1
CSS Framework
Source: UNISDR and Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the
Education Sector, “Comprehensive School Safety,”
http://gadrrres.net/uploads/files/resources/
Comprehensive-School-Safety-Framework-Dec-2014.pdf.
© UNISDR. Reproduced with permission; further permission required for reuse.

viii

Background

This Roadmap directly relates to Pillar 1 of the CSS Framework, safe learning facilities. To integrate safety
into school infrastructure, there needs to be an understanding of disaster risk as well as the school infrastructure project cycle, which includes planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance.

This Roadmap is focused specifically on school infrastructure (which includes the school site and buildings).
For investment opportunities to be eﬀective and to have maximum impact at community and national
scales, it is important that this support is coordinated with investments in school disaster management, risk
reduction and resilience in education, and disaster preparedness in other sectors.
These other investments may seek to2/.

Mobilize political commitment for school safety.
A commitment to act and provide resources should be sought from key political influencers
and decision makers.

.

Build social demand for school safety.
Communities need to be aware of the importance of safe schools in order to create a community-driven desire for safe school infrastructure. Using crowdsourcing apps (such as “Howsafe is your school?”2 ) is a powerful way to raise awareness as well as to capture baseline data
for measuring the eﬀectiveness of interventions in the future.

.

Offer training and development.
There is an opportunity to use safe school construction programs as education tools by
providing associated training programs for both practical skills and awareness.

The app is available at https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/unisdr-school-safety-assessment/id786074863?mt=8ix

Understanding Safer Schools

Understanding Safer Schools
Defining a “Safe” School
School safety can mean diﬀerent things to diﬀerent people depending on their perception of risk. Typically,
it is assumed that a safe school is able to withstand extreme events without collapsing and that the risk ofloss of life is low: while the building may sustain extensive damage, occupants are able to exit safely and/or failure of the building is localized. In many instances, however, it is also desirable to minimize damage,since school buildings play an important role in creating resilient communities. Continuity of schooling is
critical to rapid recovery, and the schools themselves may serve as a community refuge, distribution center,or resource center in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. Consequently, focusing on “safe and resilient”
schools (rather than on “safe” schools) is more appropriate and better reflects a desire to minimize disruption
as well as prevent loss of life or assets.

Understanding Risk
The extent to which a school is safe will depend on its location, construction, and operation. Four factors
contribute to reducing (or increasing) risk: hazards, site location, physical planning, and quality of buildings.
These are shown in figure 3 and discussed in more detail below.
location

Risk = Hazard

Hazardconstruction & operation

Exposure

Vulnerability

Site Location

Building

Physical
Planning

figure 3
Factors contributing to safe schools mapped against the definition of risk.

HazardThe risk posed by natural hazards is determined in the first instance by the likelihood of a particular
type and magnitude of event occurring. The risk of a major earthquake with the potential to devastate acommunity might be comparable to that of annual hurricanes, which cause relatively minor damage more
frequently. The assessment of all relevant hazards is a prerequisite for achieving safe schools.
xUnderstanding Safer Schools

Site Location
How hazards are experienced at the local level relates to exposure, which depends on the site location andphysical characteristics, including soil conditions, topography, vegetation, and proximity to water bodies or
fault lines. For instance, areas characterized by sandy soils and a high water table may be prone to liquefaction following an earthquake, while proximity to water bodies or deforested slopes may increase flood risk
following periods of heavy rainfall.

Physical Planning
Exposure can be mitigated (or compounded) by the physical planning of the site. For instance, wind loads
on buildings can be significantly reduced by the correct orientation, and civil engineering works, such asretaining walls, slope stabilization, and drainage, can substantially mitigate exposure to landslides andflooding.

Building Quality
The vulnerability of a school is influenced by the quality of buildings, including both structural andnon-structural elements as well as building services. Inappropriate design and poor-quality materials orworkmanship—the result of limited resources, corruption, or a move away from vernacular construction
methodologies—have all contributed to high levels of vulnerability and the resulting collapse of numerous
schools in recent years.
Some structural typologies are more suitable than others to withstand particular hazards; for instance, alightweight timber frame is well-suited to areas subject to earthquakes but not high winds. The configuration of the building, the size and manner of connecting structural elements, and the quality of materials
and workmanship will all aﬀect the structural capacity, which determines the building’s ability to withstandextreme loads.
Significant modifications, including extensions, large openings, and additional stories, may compromise
the original design and also increase vulnerability; the same is true if there is deterioration in the building’s
condition, for instance due to corrosion, settlement, or cracking.
Additional vulnerability results from non-structural elements. Furniture, signage, pipes and ducts, androoftop water tanks can contribute to increased vulnerability if they are inadequately fixed to the structure.
Inadequately protected hazardous materials and combustible materials can also make buildings more
vulnerable.
The construction methodology aﬀects how a building is maintained and repaired; if the methodology leads
to deterioration, there is an impact on safety.
Damage that may be costly or time-consuming to repair is unacceptable in a safe and resilient school. To
promote safety, greater emphasis should be placed not only on the quality of design and construction, buton the ability to maintain, repair, and adapt facilities without compromising their structural integrity.
Inadequate maintenance budgets, uncertainty over who is responsible for maintenance, and imported
construction technologies may make schools less safe over time. Maintaining access and continuity ofbasic services after a disaster, particularly water and power, is also important and may be achieved throughprotective measures or standby (or backup) systems.

xiUnderstanding Safer Schools

Characteristics of a Safe School
Ten characteristics of a safe school have been developed based on a review of best-practice literature andgood engineering practices for designing, delivering, and evaluating schools. These are summarized in table 1.
Characteristic 1 relates to the measurements needed in order to establish the design criteria; Characteristics
2 and 3 relate to the site location; and Characteristics 4 to 10 apply to the building itself (including building
services and non-structural elements).
In countries where there is a mature regulatory framework that is enforced, these characteristics will
already be incorporated in building codes and practices, so that compliance becomes the predominant issue
in achieving safe schools. Elsewhere, the characteristics provide a basis for developing assessment methods
that identify the action needed at the various stages of the project delivery cycle or to support diﬀerent
methods of implementation.

xii

Understanding Safer Schools

table 1
Characteristics of a Safe School

focus

characteristic
1.

A hazard assessment has been undertaken to identify the types ofhazard that the school may experience (e.g., tsunamis, volcanoes,
earthquakes).

2.

A site assessment has been undertaken to identify key features that
may impact exposure to specific hazards, including topography, soil
conditions, proximity to water bodies/fault lines, vegetation.

Assessment

Site Location

3. Appropriate mitigation measures have been taken in the physicalplanning of the site to adequately mitigate the risks identified as aresult of the hazard and site assessments.

4. The building makes use of an appropriate structural typology—one

that takes account of the most prevalent hazards.
5.

The building configuration is reasonably symmetric, allows safe
egress, and avoids irregular features.

6. Significant building modifications (e.g., openings, canopies, additional

stories) have not been constructed unless allowed for specifically inthe building design.
7.

Building

The structural capacity of key elements of the building (e.g.,foundations, beams, columns, walls, roof, connections) have beenassessed for their ability to transfer vertical and lateral loads.

8. The selection of the building’s non-structural elements (e.g., facades,

internal walls, storage of hazardous materials, equipment, signage) has
taken account of the prevalent hazards, and elements are adequately
fixed to the main structure.
9. There are systems in place to assure the quality of materials andworkmanship during construction, and there are no signs ofstructural deterioration (e.g., settlement, cracking, corrosion) in key
elements of the building (e.g., foundations, beams, columns, walls, roof,
connections) that might impair the structural performance.
10. There is adequate funding and local skill available to carry out regular

maintenance and repair of the building and site infrastructure (e.g.,drainage channels, access and evacuation routes).
xiii

Safe School Roadmap

Safe School Roadmap
Purpose and Objectives of the Roadmap
The purpose of this Roadmap is to enable World Bank task team leaders (TTLs) to engage with the ministriesof education, finance, and public works within a country so as to promote informed investment in the safetyof new or existing school infrastructure at risk from natural hazards.
The intention is to promote a long-term, systematic approach to improving the safety of school infrastructure globally that uses a quantitative risk assessment to define needs and priorities. The focus is primarily on
public school infrastructure.
The specific objectives of the Roadmap are as follows:.

To help the World Bank TTL identify entry points for Bank support (financing, policy reform,
advisory services) to the education sector that facilitate the design and implementation ofsafer schools programs.

To influence policy reforms and wider investments in risk reduction that create safer school
environments.

To inform long- term national strategies that prioritize safety at scale and that relate toprevious and ongoing activities in the education sector

Audience
The Safer Schools Roadmap is an operational tool that will guide the interactions of World Bank TTLs with
relevant ministries on the topic of school infrastructure safety. It can be used by TTLs from a variety ofdiﬀerent backgrounds, including education, disaster risk management/reduction, and engineering (construction). It is important that TTLs lacking background or experience in both disaster risk reduction and (school)
construction seek help from others with the appropriate experience.
The Roadmap itself, however, uses concepts and language that are accessible for those without experience indisaster risk reduction and construction, and it provides guidance on the technical expertise that is requiredby the activities.

Structure of the Roadmap
The Roadmap consists of six steps that follow a logical sequence from diagnosis to analysis, opportunity, andinvestment (figure 4). This guidance note focuses on Steps 1–5; Step 6 is the discussion with the government
about Bank support.
Each step of the Roadmap corresponds to a section of the guidance note. The beginning of each section
presents an overview of that step, which outlines the purpose, key objectives, and number of modules forthat step along with related activities. Each step will result in a key deliverable or deliverables that will
enable TTLs to build an evidence-based argument (figure 5).

xivSafe School Roadmap

Step 1
SchoolInfrastructure
Baseline

Step 2

Step 4

Step 5

Step 6

Construction
Environment

Disaster Risk
Analysis

Safer School
Investment
Opportunities

Bank
Engagement

Step 3Financial
Environment

figure 4
Safer Schools Roadmap

xv

Safe School Roadmap

Step 1
PurposeKey Objectives what the TTL should know at the end of the step
module 1.1
activity 1.1.1

activity 1.1.2

Description/Guidance

Description/Guidance

OutputOutputLocal Partners

Local Partners

Technical Expertise

Technical Expertisemodule 1.2
activity 1.2.1
Description/Guidance

Description/Guidance

OutputOutputLocal Partners

Local Partners

Technical Expertise

Technical Expertise

Deliverables(s)figure 5
Structure of Each Step

xvi

activity 1.2.2

Step #
Module #Activity #Activity Title
This highlights theobjective(s) of the stepthat this activity aims toachieve
Description of theactivity contents andguidance on themethodology to carry itout effectively

Suggested local partners toengage with to help carryout this activity and achieve
this objective

Technical expertise
required to contribute toor lead this activity

Output of this activity that may
feed into the final deliverable ofthe step

figure 6
Activity Page

xvii

xviiiSchool Infrastructure Baseline

1

Step 1
School Infrastructure Baseline
PurposeObjectives

To establish a baseline of existing school
infrastructure facilities and the demand
for new school infrastructure.

Identify the quantity and quality of existing school infrastructure
Determine the exposure of school infrastructure to natural
hazards
Evaluate the potential shortfall of new school infrastructure
Estimate the scale of potential repair, retrofit, (re)construction,and relocation needs

moduleactivity

1.1 Natural Hazards

objective

1.1.1 Identify the natural hazards that posea risk to school infrastructure
1.2.1 Create an inventory of existing school infrastructure

1.2 Existing School
Infrastructure

1.2.2 Examine the physical characteristics
of existing school infrastructure
1.2.3 Identify existing interventions

1.2.4 Identify the schools exposed to the natural hazards

1.3 New School
Infrastructure

1.3.1 Identify the demand for new school infrastructure and estimate shortfall
1.3.2 Understand government’s school infrastructure plans

Deliverables
The key deliverables will be the following:› GIS database that contains information gathered in the activities above, including locations of existing schools,
available hazard data, and structural and non-structural characteristics of the existing schools. This database will be
an important tool for monitoring and reporting on the progress of school infrastructure programs over time. It may beespecially useful in securing additional funds and gaining political support. It will also be needed in further stages forthe design, implementation, and monitoring of specific rehabilitation programs.
› Report summarizing the scale of potential school infrastructure construction needs.

1

|

1.1.1

Step 1: School Infrastructure Baseline Module 1: Natural Hazards

1.1.1
Identify the natural hazards that posea risk to school infrastructure
objective
Guidance
As part of the initial diagnosis of school infrastructure, it is necessary to understand the range ofhazards that may compromise the planning, design, construction, repair, retrofitting, and operationof school infrastructure projects. This activity is an initial screening of the exposure of school
infrastructure to natural hazards; it aims to collect existing information about and knowledge ofnatural hazards that pose a risk to school infrastructure. At this stage no hazard or risk assessment isenvisioned (this will be carried out in Step 4).
In many countries the risk to school infrastructure posed by natural hazards is not understood, or it
has not been assessed in enough detail to inform the development of an investment plan for school
infrastructure. However, countries (school communities, institutions, government) often have a basic
knowledge of the natural hazards that aﬀect school infrastructure based on previous events. There ismore likely to be information on natural hazards that occur frequently, such as hurricanes or floods,
and less likely to be information on infrequent hazards, such as earthquakes or tsunamis, especially
if these hazards have not occurred in recent history.
Possible sources of information on hazards include existing hazard maps or historical event maps
produced by relevant government departments (not necessarily the Ministry of Education [MoE];
historical damage assessments; existing hazard/risk studies and assessments conducted for theeducation sector; and data on disasters caused by natural hazards.
Existing information can be identified through a combination of stakeholder consultations (in boththe education and disaster risk reduction sectors, and at both government and community levels)and desktop (multi)hazard studies, which review published research studies along with available
hazard maps and publicly available data (e.g., SRTM topographic data available on the U.S. Geological
Survey website). Where possible, evidence should be corroborated by more than one source; thiscorroboration may involve asking the same questions to diﬀerent stakeholders and referencing theanswers to existing sources of information. Data will need to be collated, reviewed, and commented
on to identify the range, frequency, and intensity of the hazards that exist in the specified location.
Where hazard maps exist, they can be used to help establish a preliminary overview of the spatial
exposure of school infrastructure by integrating them into the geographic information system (GIS)
database to be developed as part of this step (under Activity 1.2.4).

2|

Step 1: School Infrastructure Baseline Module 1: Natural Hazards

Local Partners
The MoE and its related departments need to be educated consumers of regional and local hazard
information, and must be able to link this information specifically to school sites and facilities as wellas the routes to access them.
Government departments—including the Ministry of Public Works (MoPW), National Disaster
Management Agency, Ministry of the Interior, national and local fire departments, Planning
Department, agriculture sector authorities, and health sector authorities—may have government
records on natural hazards. Other key partners could include meteorological and geotechnicalagencies, the construction industry (engineering firms), local universities, NGOs and internationalNGOs (INGOs), insurance companies, and consultancy firms.
The insurance industry typically has a comprehensive data set on natural hazards; and a number of
initiatives, including the partnership of Risk Management Solutions (RMS) with the United Nations
Oﬃce for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) and World Bank, have been developed to provide
governments with open access to insurance companies’ data and catastrophe models.

Technical ExpertiseThis activity should be carried out by technical consultants or academics with specific expertise innatural hazards.

OutputA technical note summarizing the natural hazards aﬀecting the specified location should be
developed; the note should also identify whether the information is up to date and where there aregaps. The note should indicate whether further, more detailed (multi)hazard assessments should beundertaken; these will inform Activity 4.1.1.

3

|

1.2.1

Step 1: School Infrastructure Baseline Module 2: Existing School Infrastructure

1.2.1
Create an inventory of
existing school infrastructure
objective
Guidance
This activity generates the basic information needed to develop an inventory of existing school
infrastructure; this inventory will serve as the baseline from which the extent of risk from natural
hazards can be determined, along with potential opportunities for reducing these risks. The
inventory should be developed as a geospatial database, such as a GIS, in order to facilitate data
analysis and to enable overlaying school locations with hazards to determine exposure. Such a
database also provides for comprehensive school mapping and is typically the most significant
information required for assessing infrastructure improvements at scale.
The inventory database will become an important tool for reporting to government on the progressof school infrastructure programs (reconstruction or retrofitting), and it will be especially useful for
raising additional funds and getting political support for future school infrastructure programs. It istherefore important that the database be formatted so it can be updated easily, and there should beclarity about who owns the database and will manage it going forward.
This collection of school-related data will also be very useful for all educational planning, as wellplanning for purposes of disaster risk reduction and emergency response. Without it, school
authorities will not be able to process the data needed for rational planning, resource allocation, andmonitoring of school infrastructure.
The school infrastructure’s exposure to natural hazards and its vulnerabilities will be incorporated
into the inventory during Activities 1.2.2 and 1.2.3, although in practice these activities might becoordinated and carried out simultaneously. Developed nations with fully functioning Education
Management Information Systems usually have this information in place. In other countries, theinformation may be fragmented, and it may be necessary to coordinate data from diﬀerent ministries
and government departments or agencies. Any existing inventory or database should be reviewed
and used as a basis for this activity. The database should include enough information to clarify
the problem but need not necessarily indicate how to prioritize an investment. Where information
doesn’t exist or there are gaps, the information should be gathered through a data collection
method—e.g., rapid visual assessment (RVA), remote data collection methods, etc.)—that is tailored to
the nature of the data, the purpose of the assessment, and the resources available.

Local Partners
Sectoral agencies typically have detailed information on their assets (e.g., location, age, and number ofbuildings). It will be important to identify which ministry/government department is responsible forschool infrastructure, and it will be essential to involve the relevant government staﬀ in this process
to share ownership and responsibility. Information may need to be collected from diﬀerent agencies.
4|

Step 1: School Infrastructure Baseline Module 2: Existing School Infrastructure

If information on schools doesn’t exist, a methodology for data collection will need to be developed.
Data can also be obtained through INGOs, NGOs, and others implementing school infrastructure
programs.

Technical Expertise
Technical consultants will need to design and set up the inventory database if one does not alreadyexist. The Istanbul Seismic Risk Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Project (ISMEP), forexample, relied on technical assistance input from international experts. A project coordinationcommittee was also established for ISMEP to coordinate and manage the diﬀerent government
agencies and flow of information. This approach helped build the capacity of the local government tomanage the inventory. Local experts should if possible be engaged in this activity, since they typicallyhave a good understanding of the characteristics and vulnerability of the local infrastructure.
Where further information needs to be developed, technical consultants should be hired toundertake the assessment and collect data on school infrastructure. A bottom-up approach tocollecting nontechnical data is relatively inexpensive and can be done through crowdsourcing of
information from school principals, teachers, parents, etc. Alternately, a simple approach can be
developed that can be implemented on site by nontechnical staﬀ, or with easy-to-find local technical support.

OutputThe scope of the database (nature and detail of the data) should be tailored to its purpose and should
be defined by technical consultants and the ministry/government department responsible for school
infrastructure. A database of existing school infrastructure should include at least the following:.

Date of survey.

Number of school buildings and classrooms, including building/block reference identification.

Number of occupants (students, staﬀ).

Location (GPS coordinates) to enable GIS mapping and overlay with hazard maps (inActivity 1.2.4), so that the extent of exposure can be identified.

Education service stream (primary, secondary, etc.).

Urban/rural.

Public/private school (asset owner).

Age of school buildings.

Photographic reference.

Number of stories.

Basic information about the type of structure of the school buildings (e.g., load-bearing masonry, reinforced concrete frame, steel frame, etc.).

Basic information about the functional conditions of the school buildings (e.g., waterand sanitation)

If one of the purposes of the inventory is to support the disaster risk analysis of Step 4, more
information related to structural and non-structural characteristics and to the condition (level ofdeterioration) of the school buildings could be required, as explained in Activity 1.2.2.
5

|

1.2.2

Step 1: School Infrastructure Baseline Module 2: Existing School Infrastructure

1.2.2
Examine the physical characteristics
of existing school infrastructure
objective
Guidance
The physical characteristics of the school buildings influence their vulnerability.
The physical characteristics of school infrastructure may be classified as follows:.

Structural characteristics. In engineering terminology, these are the system ofstructural elements that provide building stability and resistance to external actions(e.g., earthquakes, wind, gravity) and that are often known as the structural typology.
This classification needs to consider the building’s condition, including historicalor recent damage, since damage typically influences the response of the structural
typology.

.

Nonstructural characteristics. These are mostly related to the building envelope (ifnot part of the structural system) and include finishes such as windows, ceilings, andbuilding equipment.

During this activity data should be collected, either through existing data sets or through primarysourcing, to build into the inventory of existing school infrastructure initiated in Activity 1.2.1. The
information gathered will be used to categorize school buildings by structural typology. It will also
be used to get a high-level understanding of buildings’ vulnerabilities and typical condition/historicaldamages for the risk assessment as part of Step 4; this assessment will inform the development ofa prioritized investment plan in school infrastructure as part of Step 5. The data collection in thisactivity should be coordinated with activities in Step 4 to ensure that the data’s level of detail andformat are appropriate for use in the risk assessment.
Preliminary categorization and vulnerability appraisal can be made by comparing how the physicalcharacteristics collected above compare to appropriate hazard-resistant details—that is, whether the
structural typology and building configuration are appropriate for the hazards present (reduced roof
weight for seismic resistance, roof tie-down details for wind resistance, etc.).

6

Depending on the existing information available, it may be necessary to gather new information
through a comprehensive field survey and to incorporate it into the assessment undertaken in
Activity 1.2.1. A methodology can be created to collect detailed structural data about each schoolbuilding and to cover many (preferably all) schools by a high-level walk-through. The data should
include both structural and non-structural elements that contribute to the building’s performance
during an event, as well as site conditions. If comprehensive field surveys of every school are notfeasible because of limited resources, some strategy for prioritizing schools—for example, schools
in the most exposed locations—should be developed; or only a sample of school buildings could besurveyed (using the stratified method of the Raosoft sample size calculator [http://www.raosoft.
com/samplesize.html]). The sample of schools could be categorized into subgroup, such as structural

|

Step 1: School Infrastructure Baseline Module 2: Existing School Infrastructure

typology (if known), type of school (public/private, etc.), school level (kindergarten/primary,secondary, university, etc.), number of students, and location (to ensure that a statistically representative sample of all schools is assessed).
Other sources of information to supplement primary survey data include; existing model school
designs and existing damage assessments. Depending on the appropriateness of the existing
information, it may be used directly or to prioritize existing schools for inspection.

Local Partners
Partners are the same as those described for Activity 1.2.1.

Technical Expertise
Structural engineers, specifically those with expertise in the hazards identified in Activity 1.1.1,
should be contracted to design and develop the assessment methodology and provide training andguidance for those undertaking the surveys. See also the expertise described for Activity 1.2.1.
To develop a robust and replicable process for the building assessment, there needs to be an understanding of who will be undertaking the assessment and establishing the tools for quality reportingand communication. A rigorous assessment process requires the following:a.

Clarity about the purpose of the assessment and the action to be taken based on theoutcomeb.

Competent assessors with appropriate trainingc.

A robust and replicable assessment processd.

A standard reporting format that records the basis of the assessment and the key
findingse.

An eﬀective quality assurance proceduref.

A database or platform that can readily collate and analyze assessments

Output
The following data should be input into the existing school infrastructure inventory databasedeveloped in Activity 1.2.1:.

Structural typology.

Vulnerability factors, including
1

Building configuration (e.g., shape on plan, shape on elevation, configuration of openings, number of bays, roof shape)

1

Modifications

1

Existing interventions (repair, retrofit)

1

Dimensions of key building components, such as foundations,lateral and vertical load system, floors, roof1

Non-structural elements

1

Physical condition (e.g., historical/recent damages, material deterioration, settlements)

7

|

1.2.3

Step 1: School Infrastructure Baseline Module 2: Existing School Infrastructure

1.2.3
Identify existing interventions
Objective
Guidance
This activity identifies any repair or retrofitting programs that have been or are being implemented
and identifies their impact, associated investments, and the specific intervention options (repair,retrofit).
In areas where a school structural safety program (repair, retrofit or reconstruction) is already underway, this activity provides critical information for determining where other safe school programs
should be prioritized. It also helps in defining and selecting a repair/retrofit strategy (part of Step 5)that builds on existing capacities and lessons learned. Technical experts (engineers) should review
all existing interventions to ensure that they are increasing the safety of school infrastructure.
Information about existing interventions could be collated through the assessment conducted in
Activity 1.2.2.
As part of this activity, eﬀorts should be made to understand the country’s approach to improving
school infrastructure safety: Is it nationally coordinated? Is it taking place at the district/local level(and not coordinated)? Or does it not exist at all?

Local Partners
The MoE and/or MoPW (the latter responsible for education facilities) should have an understandingof existing or historical repair or retrofitting programs. Depending on how established the regulatory
framework is and whether it is enforced, any modifications to buildings should have been approvedby the appropriate government department.
Other entities that may also have information on interventions include donors, INGOs, and NGOs
implementing school infrastructure programs, as well as engineering and architectural associations
or universities.

Technical ExpertiseThis activity requires technical experts in structural engineering, specifically those with expertise in
the hazards identified in Activity 1.1.1 and in the retrofit and repair of existing buildings.

OutputA summary report should be developed that identifies the existing intervention options for thecommon school infrastructure structural typologies identified in the previous activities. The report
should review existing interventions for appropriateness, benefit in terms of structural safety,
quality of implementation, and cost, and it should recommend potential intervention options to be
included in a possible safe school program.
8

|

1.2.4

Step 1: School Infrastructure Baseline Module 2: Existing School Infrastructure

1.2.4
Identify the schools exposedto the natural hazards
objective
Guidance
Where hazard maps exist (see Activity 1.1.1), they should be integrated into the inventory developedin Activities 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. Doing so will enable the TTLs to map the school locations against thehazard zones to determine both the exposure of school infrastructure assets to natural hazards
and the magnitude of the problem (number of schools/classrooms/occupants in hazard zones). This
information could inform a preliminary estimation of the number of schools that might be relocatedin case the level of risk is unacceptably high.
Information about schools’ location will be most useful if it is in GIS format, which can be analyzed
and updated eﬀectively. The state of California provides a good case study of interoperable school
location information displayed as a visible layer superimposed on the hazard maps.

Local Partners
Partners are the same as those described for Activity 1.1.1.

Technical Expertise
The consultants contracted to develop the database should integrate the maps into the GIS databaseand analyze the data to identify those schools exposed to natural hazards.

OutputA map showing school locations against hazard zones should be produced.

9

1.3.1|

Step 1: School Infrastructure Baseline Module 3: New School Infrastructure

1.3.1
Identify the demand for new
school infrastructure
objective
Guidance
This activity involves understanding the demand for new school infrastructure in order to determine(1) if more schools are needed; and (2) if excessive stresses are being placed on existing school infrastructure. It should be noted that the demand for new school infrastructure is not always welldefined by the MoE.
There are two key questions to address in this activity:a.

What are the drivers of demand? Answering this question involves identifying thefactors that aﬀect the demand for schools, such as the education policy (including
compulsory education streams), population, and demographic trends.

b.

What is the current demand for new schools? Answering this question involves
assessing the demand in diﬀerent locations; identifying any concentrations inurban or rural contexts; determining the diﬀerent levels of demand in the diﬀerent
education service streams (kindergarten/primary /secondary); and quantifying the
anticipated changes in demand over the short, medium, and long term.

This activity should seek to determine the current and future shortfall in schools; this information
will help to inform the prioritization of investment in new or existing facilities.
Some existing data are likely to be available and may be supplemented through targeted stakeholder
engagement, such as household surveys, focus group discussions, and meetings with government
departments and administrators.
If data are diﬃcult to obtain, demographic research (population, children in school) should beundertaken. A high-level assessment mapping of the school locations (see Activity 1.2.1) relative topopulation concentrations is a good way of illustrating areas of potential demand.

Local Partners
Education specialists (World Bank TTLs) should be consulted in the first instance, along with theMoE. The MoE is likely to have specific information on capacity of schools and numbers of pupils ineach school, including publications and documents relating to the demand for school infrastructure
and to education policy.
Relevant demographic data, satellite imagery, and maps may be available from government
departments responsible for master planning.

10|

Step 1: School Infrastructure Baseline Module 3: New School Infrastructure

Technical Expertise
Education or school infrastructure specialists should be contracted to identify gaps in available
information and undertake analysis to assess the demand for school infrastructure.

OutputGeospatial information should be collected that relates to demand for school infrastructure in the
short, medium, and long term (such as school capacity, walking distance to nearest school, population
density). Findings should be summarized in a report that includes an estimation of investment
required for new school infrastructure.

11

1.3.2|

Step 1: School Infrastructure Baseline Module 3: New School Infrastructure

1.3.2
Understand government’s school
infrastructure plansobjective
Guidance
This activity reviews and identifies the ongoing education policies that influence the development of
the school infrastructure in the country. It is concerned with the following:.

National education policy and its long-term development strategy.

Integration of school infrastructure policy within national education policies.

Private education and contributions from nongovernmental organizations.

Role of religious organizations in school infrastructure policy.

Government’s education coverage and quality indicators (education levels, rural
versus urban)

Local Partners
Work should be coordinated with MoE and MoPW and with donors, NGOs, and INGOs supporting
the government in implementing school infrastructure programs.

Technical Expertise
Education or school infrastructure specialists should be contracted to understand government’s
school infrastructure plans.

OutputA report should be produced summarizing current government’s school infrastructure policies, plans,
and/or programs.

12|

Step 1: School Infrastructure Baseline Module 3: New School Infrastructure13

School Infrastructure Baseline

14

Construction Environment

2

Step 2
Construction Environment
PurposeObjectives

To gain an understanding of the institutional environment and regulatory
framework within which school
infrastructure is planned, designed,
constructed, operated, maintained,
repaired, and retrofitted in order todetermine the factors placing school
infrastructure at risk.

moduleUnderstand the strengths and weaknesses of the regulatory
framework
Understand the strengths and weaknesses of the process for
implementing school infrastructure
Identify vulnerabilities in the construction technology used forschool infrastructure
Identify opportunities to improve the safety of school infrastructure

activity

objective

2.1.1 Identify the planning regulation documents
and understand what they cover and exclude

2.1 Regulatory
Environment

2.1.2 Identify the building regulation documents andunderstand what they cover and exclude
2.1.3 Map the history of the regulatory documents

2.1.4 Identify the regulatory process

2.2.1 Map key stakeholders

2.2 Implementation Process

2.2.2 Identify capacity and capability of key stakeholders
2.2.3 Identify procurement and construction
management processes

2.3 Construction
Technology

2.3.1 Identify typical construction materials

2.3.2 Identify school infrastructure designs

Deliverables
The key deliverable will be a report that identifies the gaps and vulnerabilities aﬀecting safe school construction/retrofitting and that recommends improvements to guide policy actions.

15|Step 2: Construction Environment Module 1: Regulatory Environment

2.1.1

2.1.1
Identify the planning regulation documents
and understand what they cover and exclude
objective
Guidance
Planning regulations provide guidance on where to locate buildings/infrastructure and on how tophysically plan the site. Proper location and site planning can significantly reduce the exposureof schools to natural hazards (see box 1). Where they exist, planning regulations typically include
planning guidelines, processes and requirements, and land use plans. This activity should identify
what planning regulations exist and what they cover and exclude, along with any potential
weaknesses and opportunities for improvement to reduce the exposure of school infrastructure.
The following should be considered:.

Is there a national development plan or policy, and do the planning regulations align with it?

.

Do up-to-date land use plans exist?

.

Do the planning regulations account for known hazards as identified in Activity 1.1.1,
in particular flooding, storm surge, and volcanoes?

.

Do site selection guidelines exist for school infrastructure or other buildings?

.

How old are the guidelines/regulations, and how often are they updated? Have they
been updated since the last hazard event?

.

Are regulatory documents consistent with each other?

box 1 : regulatory documents
Regulatory documents (such as building codes and land use plans) are important mechanisms for reducing disaster risk.
However, they are eﬀective only if they are up to date, incorporate current understanding and best practice, reflect local formsof construction and perceptions of risk, and are part of a wider culture of safety and environmental concern that includes
education and training at all levels of society, as well as legislation and enforcement.

16|

Step 2: Construction Environment Module 1: Regulatory Environment

Local Partners
The relevant partners are MoE and MoPW; the Planning Department or department responsible forproviding planning permission (if one exists); and engineering or architectural consultants/ universities/institutions/associations.

Technical ExpertiseThis activity requires construction professionals or academics in engineering or architecture whohave a deep understanding of the regulatory environment.

OutputA report should be produced that summarizes the strengths and weaknesses in the regulatory
framework and highlights opportunities for improvement (this output can be combined with that for
Activity 2.1.2).

17

|

Step 2: Construction Environment Module 1: Regulatory Environment

2.1.2

2.1.2
Identify the building regulation documents
and understand what they cover and exclude
objective
Guidance
Building regulations, including building codes and guidelines, provide guidance on how buildings/
infrastructure should be designed and constructed. Proper design and construction can significantly
reduce the vulnerability of schools to natural hazards. This activity should identify what building
regulations exist as well as any gaps and potential opportunities for improvement.
The national building regulations should be identified and the codes and guidelines reviewed in orderto understand what they cover in terms of hazards, materials and structural typology, building types(schools/educational facilities), new construction, and repair and retrofitting of existing buildings.
This review should determine whether the regulations and codes are in line with existing schools
and plans for school construction/repair/retrofit. The following questions should be considered:.

Are there building codes and guidelines for both new construction and repair/retrofit
of existing buildings? Is there specific guidance for school infrastructure?

.

Are building codes based on international codes and best-practice guidelines? If so,which ones? Have they been adapted to suit the local context (hazard, materials,
technologies, communication), and is this adaptation appropriate for the local formsof construction? (See structural typologies identified in Step 1.).

How old are codes and guidelines, and how often are they updated?

.

Do the building guidelines complement the building codes, or were they developed tofill a gap in the building codes?

.

Do they adequately cover the local hazards? Does the building code state that
schools, usually defined as critical infrastructure, require a higher performance
objective? (See box 2.).

Are building regulation documents consistent with each other?

box 2 : performance objectives
Performance objectives (POs) are used to define the maximum level of risk that can be tolerated in terms of damage anddisruption. Table 2 identifies four levels of performance that reflect the extent to which a school is safe or safe and resilient
based on the approach and terminology developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).1 International
codes of practice (e.g., Eurocode 8, Part 1, BS EN 1998-1, and International Building Code: 2009) use importance factors thattypically classify a school as critical infrastructure and imply a performance objective comparable to PO3. A school that meets
PO2/PO1 designs will normally exceed building code requirements. Generally, building codes do not address the performanceof non-structural elements, although their failure—notably the collapse of masonry partitions and facades, parapets, etc.—canalso cause death, injury, and disruption.
1/

18

FEMA, “Design Guide for Improving School Safety in Earthquakes, Floods and High Winds,”
Risk Management Series, FEMA P-424, December 2010.

|

Step 2: Construction Environment Module 1: Regulatory Environment
performance
objective

description

level ofresilience. No structural damage. The
PO1Continuous
occupancybuilding is safe to be used during
and after the natural disaster.

. Damage to contents is minimal

impact on school

Mild
High

and services will continue tofunction without alteration.

Continuous education in theschool or use as a community/
emergency shelter. Minor damage to structure that is

PO2
Immediate
occupancy/
operational
continuity

repairable at a reasonable cost andin a reasonable amount of time.
Moderate. Specified assets are protected.
. Nonstructural components andsystems needed for the building tooperate are fully functional (withutilities possibly available fromstandby sources). Some cleanup
and repair may be required.

Moderate

Delayed start to educationin school while repairs
are carried out. Damage to both structural and

PO3Life safety

nonstructural components,
but risk of loss of life is low.

. Building systems and utilities

High
Safe

are damaged and inoperable.

Extensive delays or building
to be demolished. Building may be beyond

economic repair.

. Building is near collapse andPO4
Collapseprevention

significant hazard to life may exist.

. Building and emergency systems are

Unsafeextensively damaged and inoperable.

SevereNo use; building to be demolished. Building beyond technical repair.

Local Partners
Relevant partners are MoE and MoPW, the Building Control Department (or department responsible
for certifying construction documents), and engineering or architectural consultants/universities/
institutions/ associations.

Technical Expertise
The same technical expertise is required as for Activity 2.1.1.

OutputA report should be produced that summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the regulatory
framework and that highlights opportunities for improvements (this output can be combined withthat for Activity 2.1.1.

19

|

Step 2: Construction Environment Module 1: Regulatory Environment

2.1.3

2.1.3
Map the history of the regulatory documents
objective
Guidance
Updated regulatory documents, along with enforcement mechanisms, are one of the main challenges
in developing countries. Using the information on historical updates to the regulatory documents
gathered during Activities 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, this activity maps the updates on a timeline against
information gathered during Step 1 relating to hazard events, hazard studies, education policy,
infrastructure programs, damage assessments, and other relevant events. This mapping should
illustrate if the updates were responsive to historical hazard events, and if they resulted in a change
in structural typology that in turn reduced school buildings’ vulnerability.

Local Partners
Partners are the same as those described for Activities 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.

Technical Expertise
The same technical expertise is required as for Activities 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.

OutputA timeline should be produced, and information should be input into the summary of strengths andweaknesses in the regulatory framework.

20

|

Step 2: Construction Environment Module 1: Regulatory Environment

2.1.4

2.1.4
Identify the regulatory process
objective
Guidance
Improving the regulatory framework for the implementation of school infrastructure can contributeto safer schools. This activity should identify the regulatory process and note any shortcomings or
potential opportunities for improvement. Specifically, it should focus on the following:.

Approval process. This typically relates to the planning and final design stages toensure buildings are designed in line with the regulatory documents. The approvalstages and those responsible should be identified (see Activities 2.2.1 and 2.2.2).

.

Certification. This relates to the end of the construction stage, when occupancy
certificates are typically awarded. The timing (at key construction stages) and natureof site inspections during construction should be identified, along with who is
responsible for carrying them out (e.g., government, independent building inspectors,
self-certification).

.

Regulatory documents. The entities using the regulatory documents (in both theprivate and public sectors) should be identified.

.

Implementation process. The key tasks at each stage of the school infrastructure
implementation process should be outlined. Tasks include the following:.

1

Planning (identifying the site, appraising the site, planning
the site, obtaining planning permission)

1

Design (design of the school, communicating thedesign for construction, approvals)

1

Procurement

1Construction (site supervision, quality assurance including quality of materials,
certification, supply and quality of workmanship, procurement, approvals)

1

Operation and maintenance (ownership, assessment, works, protocols)

1

Repair and retrofitting

Enforcement. This concerns the degree to which processes are followed and enforced
as well as the challenges facing enforcement.

Local Partners & Technical Expertise
Partners and technical expertise are the same as those described for Activities 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.

OutputA report should be produced that summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the regulatory process.
21

|Step 2: Construction Environment Module 2: Implementation Process

2.2.1

2.2.1
Map key stakeholders
objective
Guidance
This activity involves identifying and mapping the stakeholders (public and private and end users/
school communities) against the tasks outlined at each stage of the implementation process (asidentified in Activity 2.1.4). A stakeholder analysis should be undertaken to identify stakeholders’ roles
and responsibilities, including any overlap, gaps, or possibility for corruption or ineﬃciencies, and tounderstand stakeholders’ relationship to one another, including how eﬀectively they communicate andshare information.
This activity should be related specifically to the education sector and may include a review of
education policies.

Local Partners
Partners are the same as those described for Activities 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, and also include donors/INGOs/
NGOs and the public and private sector.

Technical Expertise
The same technical expertise is required as for Activities 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.

OutputA map should be produced that shows the stakeholders involved in the implementation of school infrastructure projects and that identifies their roles and responsibilities.

22

|

Step 2: Construction Environment Module 2: Implementation Process

2.2.2

2.2.2
Identify capacity and capabilityof key stakeholders
objective
Guidance
With all the relevant stakeholders having been identified in Activity 2.2.1, this activity aims to establish
their skills, expertise, and capacity. The goal is to determine any gaps or weaknesses in the school infrastructure implementation process and to target potential investment opportunities for physical interventions (such as retrofitting/reconstruction) and for technical assistance to improve the regulatory
framework. For example, retrofitting and reconstruction options should duly consider the skills andcapacity of the contractors implementing the construction.
This activity should consider the following:.

Educational and professional environment.

Construction capacity of contractors/ local labor.

Capability and capacity of government agencies/approval bodies to enforce
regulations

Local Partners
Partners are the same as those described for Activities 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, and also include donors/ INGOs/
NGOs and the public and private sector.

Technical Expertise
The same technical expertise is required as for Activities 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.

OutputSummary notes should be produced that describe the capacity and capability of key stakeholders (those involved in all stages of the implementation process), specifically their strengths andweaknesses. The notes should also make recommendations about how resources can be strengthened.

23

|

Step 2: Construction Environment Module 2: Implementation Process

2.2.3

2.2.3
Identify procurement and construction
management processes
objective
Guidance
Procurement and construction management processes relate specifically to the approaches adopted
to secure construction services. To understand how the construction environment functions, it isimportant to identify the typical methods of construction (contractor build or community build; seeboxes 3 and 4) for school infrastructure, as well as the mechanisms for procurement and construction
management, both of which have an impact on the implementation of safer school infrastructure.
How the building is procured—i.e., who is responsible for the design and construction of the school—
will depend on the maturity of the construction industry, the available skills and capacity, and thecomplexity of the school design. For public buildings like schools, governments often have defined
procurement procedures and standard tender processes that should be followed. However, theseprocedures may involve the risk of corruption, which will need to be investigated.
Eﬀective construction management is critical to the delivery of buildings, and an understanding of
construction management practices will make it easier to devise reconstruction, retrofitting, and repair
strategies. Construction management requires skill in managing finances, programs, personnel, andsupply chains, along with a sound understanding of quality and risk. When construction involves a
combination of centralized and decentralized approaches, construction management can becomecomplex. It will be important to identify whether schools are planned and implemented centrally or
locally, and whether the approach has changed over time. It will also be important to explore the participation of both public and private sector agencies and organizations, and specifically to determine
whether public-private partnerships have been established. These partnerships can be an eﬀective way
to finance new schools (as addressed in Step 3).

box 3 : contractor build
A contractor-build process places the responsibility for the quality of construction (and sometimes the design) with thecontractor.
The safety of the school will depend on the design being undertaken by competent technical experts and verified—either inaccordance with international or local building codes, or through an alternative method (e.g., prototypes, testing). Good-quality design documentation that clearly communicates what needs to be built will facilitate construction. Such documentation
requires engineering plans, sections (1:20), construction details, and connection details (1:10 or 1:5), as well as clear specifications.
Provided the contractor is competent, employs suitably skilled subcontractors, site staﬀ, and laborers, and exercises
appropriate site management and supervision, the construction will most likely comply with the design intent. Competentcontractors are expected to have suitable quality assurance procedures in place, such as material verification certificates andsite supervision by a technical expert to monitor quality of materials and workmanship.

24

|

Step 2: Construction Environment Module 2: Implementation Process

The disadvantage of the contractor-build method is that in some countries there is a risk of corruption, especially in public
procurement, and there may be no functional control mechanisms in ministries or other levels of the government. Anotherdisadvantage is that the community can feel excluded from the building process, particularly if the designs, labor, andmaterials are imported,a which in turn can influence how the community and other end users maintain the building or carryout repairs if damage occurs. For this reason it is desirable to involve communities in the early planning and construction
stages.
a. Jo da Silva, “Lessons from Aceh: Key Considerations in Post-Disaster Reconstruction,” Practical Action
Publishing, 2010.

box 4 :community build
Community build, or “self-build,” uses community labor in construction projects. The advantage of community build is that itallows people to develop the construction skills that provide livelihood opportunities. It is also an eﬀective way to generateownership of the building within a community, which encourages maintenance.a
Communities typically have a good local knowledge of the hazards that aﬀect them, and this can be enhanced by public
databases and hazard maps. They also have a good local understanding of risk and so can easily define the performancerequirements of the school and choose suitable sites. Moreover, they have a vested interest in ensuring that the level of risk is
acceptable.
Site selection guidelines and site assessment tools can help facilitate the early decisions regarding location and physicalplanning of the school. Locally, craftsmen may be highly skilled in specific building practices. However, it is unlikely thatthe skills exist within a community to verify the designs of a safe school. For vernacular methodologies, it is unlikely thatguidelines or codes exist. Thus if the intention is to use community labor to build schools, it is essential that appropriate
measures are taken to ensure that the design of the school is sound. For example, communities could use model school designs
that are appropriate for the hazards identified in the geographical areas they are building in.
Ensuring that construction information is conveyed clearly is key. Information could be conveyed in the form of a construction manual illustrated with 3-D imagery and pictures. Drawings and models will need to be read and understood by a nontechnical, often unskilled, and possibly illiterate workforce. In addition to step-by-step guidance on how to build safe schools,
detailed information on material quantities and quality should be given, such as concrete mix ratios, the risks associated withusing sea sand in concrete, and methods for mixing concrete, making soil blocks, and undertaking simple verification tests(such as slump tests for concrete). Quality of construction and materials on self-build sites can be verified only if there is site
supervision.
a. Michal Lyons, Theo Schilderman, and Camillo Boano, eds., “Building Back Better: Delivering People-Centred Housing Reconstruction at Scale,” Practical Action Publishing, 2010.

Local Partners
Relevant partners are engineering and architecture associations, consultants, and ministries
responsible for the implementation of school infrastructure.

Technical Expertise
The activity requires engineering expertise along with knowledge of procurement and contract
management.

OutputA summary of construction capacity, gaps, and procurement issues should be produced.
25

|

Step 2: Construction Environment Module 3: Construction Technology

2.3.1

2.3.1
Identify typical construction materials
objective
Guidance
The choice of construction materials can have a significant impact on the safety of school infrastructure. Local and cultural building practices and capacities, as well as and local markets, can support
the construction and maintenance of safe school infrastructure. This activity focuses on understanding the availability and quality of the typical materials currently used in the construction of schools
and more generally; the goal is to identify potential vulnerabilities in existing school infrastructure
as well as appropriate construction materials to be used in a repair, retrofitting, and reconstruction
program. The activity requires the following:.

The identification of materials available locally. Materials may vary between regions,districts, or islands, and should include traditional materials as well as modernmaterials.

.

The identification of materials specifically used in school construction.

.

An assessment of the quality of materials. This may include raw materials such as
sand, water, and cement; site-mixed materials such as concrete; and prefabricatedmaterials such as steel beams or trusses and precast concrete. The assessment should
consider materials’ resistance to degradation from wood-boring insects or climaticconditions. Construction materials should be consistent with the design specification
and will require verification on delivery, appropriate storage, and testing.

.

Material certification. It is necessary to understand whether construction materials(such as timber, concrete, and steel) require certificates for material quality or sustainability.

.

Material codes of practice. It is necessary to understand whether the building code
includes specifications for materials, and if so whether it deals with traditional
materials such as earth blocks or bamboo.

When planning a retrofitting/reconstruction program, there may be an opportunity to invest in
improved construction practices, new materials, or new technologies. However, these need to bebalanced against cultural acceptability and—to ensure good-quality construction and the ability torepair and undertake future modifications—the requirement of skilled labor.

26

|

Step 2: Construction Environment Module 3: Construction Technology

Local Partners
Relevant partners are engineering and architecture associations, consultants, and ministries
responsible for the implementation of school infrastructure, as well as contractors, fabrication
specialists, and manufacturing and material suppliers.

Technical ExpertiseThis activity requires the expertise of engineers with experience in construction and knowledge of
construction materials.

OutputA summary should be produced that lists local/cultural construction practices and technology as wellas innovation opportunities.

27

|

Step 2: Construction Environment Module 3: Construction Technology

2.3.2

2.3.2
Identify school infrastructure designs
objective
Guidance
Investment opportunities should be aligned with current programs where possible. Standard specifications for schools, which can include building layouts, accommodation, and equipment, often
exist, and these can provide a valuable starting point for developing the design brief or serve as thebasis of model school designs. Where model school designs exist, these should be reviewed in order
to identify vulnerabilities and determine whether they could be integrated into a reconstruction
program or need to be improved. The objectives of this review are.

To understand whether the designs are appropriate, and if they diﬀer across regions/districts depending on local cultural preferences.

To understand whether the structural typology is appropriate for the local hazards,
uses good-quality and available materials, is buildable, and uses local construction
practices and capabilities.

To understand whether the designs are engineered and meet local building
regulations and/or international best practice.

To identify whether the construction documentation includes comprehensive drawings and specifications appropriate for whoever is building the school(governments sometimes provide only architectural drawings that don’t provide
enough information for construction).

To understand whether the model school designs can be adapted to suit specific siterequirements, for example, a variety of soil conditions or diﬀerences in site layouts

Local Partners
Relevant partners are engineering and architecture associations, consultants, and ministries
responsible for the implementation of school infrastructure.

Technical Expertise
Structural engineers with specific expertise in the hazards identified in Activity 1.1.1 should becontracted to carry out the review.

OutputA summary should be produced listing the strengths and weaknesses of model school designs.

28

|

Step 2: Construction Environment Module 3: Construction Technology

29|

Step 2: Construction Environment Module 3: Construction Technology

2.3.2
30

v

Financial Environment

Step 3Financial Environment
PurposeObjectives

To gain an understanding of the financial
environment within which school infrastructure is planned, designed, constructed,
operated, maintained, repaired, andretrofitted in order to determine the factors
placing school infrastructure at risk.

module3

Identify historical and planned investment programs
Understand the financing framework for school infrastructure
Navigate the investment system and mechanisms related toschool infrastructure investment programs

activity

objective

3.1.1 Identify previous investment programs in construction of new school infrastructure

3.1 Historical Investment

3.2 Current andPlanned Investment

3.3 Financing
Investment System

3.1.2 Identify previous investment programs forexisting school infrastructure, including thosefor repair/retrofitting and maintenance.
3.2.1 Identify current and future investment
programs for new school infrastructure
3.2.2 Identify current and future investment programs(repair/retrofitting) for existing school infrastructure
3.3.1 Identify the funding mechanisms, investment
requirements, and key decision makers

Deliverables
The key deliverable will be a financial summary report that includes quantitative data on investment allocation.

31

|

Step 3: Financial Environment Module 1: Historical Investment

3.1.1

3.1.1
Identify previous investment programs inconstruction of new school infrastructure
objective
Guidance
The historical financial framework for new school infrastructure should be understood in order toalign potential investment opportunities and be aware previous financial constraints. This activity
explores the historical sources of funding and budgets for school infrastructure construction
programs. The following avenues of funding should be considered:.

Government. Identify any previous national building programs and determine if
funding of new schools has been based on a national, regional, or even single-location
approach.

.

NGOs, INGOs, international donors. Identify who has been active in funding of newschools in the past, how big the programs were, and whether they were undertaken incollaboration with government (public) or private schools.

.

Private sector or public-private partnerships. Many developing countries have seen a
recent rise in private schooling due to the poor education provided in public schools.
Where there is a strong private school presence, investigate how private schools havebeen funded. In addition, determine whether private funding has been used to deliver
government (public) schools, and if so, how this was done.

It is important to clarify if third-party funding has historically made up a significant proportion offunding for school construction programs, since such funding can suggest the extent of government
resources allocated to building of schools.

Local Partners
The government departments of education and finance at national and district levels should be
consulted as key stakeholders. Any NGOs/INGOs and other international donors that have historically been involved in funding/implementing school infrastructure should also be consulted. Private
donors and businesses involved in new school construction should be identified and consulted as
well.

Technical ExpertiseThis activity should be carried out by persons with expertise in finance and specific experience andknowledge of the history of the construction industry in the country under consideration.

OutputA financial summary should be produced listing historical investments and funding mechanisms andincluding any factors that have influenced the characteristics and quality of school infrastructure.
32

|

Step 3: Financial Environment Module 1: Historical Investment

3.1.2

3.1.2
Identify previous investment programs forexisting school infrastructure, including
those for repair/retrofitting and maintenanceobjective
Guidance
The historical financial framework for existing school infrastructure should be understood in order
to align potential investment opportunities and be aware of previous financial constraints. This
activity explores the budgets and sources of funding for repair/retrofitting and maintenance ofexisting school infrastructure.
The following should be considered:.

Government. Identify any previous national repair/retrofitting programs anddetermine if they involved making schools safer or were undertaken just for
maintenance. Understanding the government resource allocation for maintenance iscritical, as maintenance will be required to ensure long-term durability of the existing
school infrastructure.

.

NGOs, INGOs, international donors. Identify who was active in the past in funding
national or local repair/retrofitting programs for existing schools.

.

Private sector or public private-partnerships. Determine whether other private
funding contributed to school repairs and upgrades in the past.

It is important to clarify if third-party funding has assisted in maintenance of existing schools, sincesuch funding can suggest the extent of government resources allocated to maintain schools.
The purpose of previous investment programs for existing school infrastructure should be clarified;possible purposes include retrofitting to reduce the vulnerability of school infrastructure as part ofa disaster mitigation program, repair as part of a disaster response and recovery program, and repair
for routine maintenance.

33

|

Step 3: Financial Environment Module 1: Historical Investment

Local Partners
3.1.2

The government departments of education and finance at national and district levels should be
consulted as key stakeholders. Any NGOs/INGOs and other international donors that have been
involved in funding school repairs or retrofitting should also be consulted. Private donors andbusinesses involved in school repairs or retrofitting should be identified and consulted.

Technical ExpertiseThis activity should be carried out by persons with expertise in finance and specific experience andknowledge of the history of the school maintenance and upgrading strategies in the country underconsideration.

OutputA summary should be produced of historical investments and funding mechanisms that contributeto maintaining or improving existing school infrastructure.

34

|

Step 3: Financial Environment Module 2: Current and Planned Investment

3.2.1

3.2.1
Identify current and future investment
programs for new school infrastructure
objective
Guidance
The financial framework for new school infrastructure should be understood in order to alignpotential investment opportunities and recognize potential financial constraints. This activity
explores the current and planned sources of funding for school infrastructure (re)construction
programs. The following avenues of funding should be considered:.

Government. Identify current and planned national building programs, or regional/
district or other government funding streams.

.

NGOs, INGOs, international donors. Identify who is currently active in funding new
schools, including the scale of the program and whether the program collaborates
with government (public) or private schools.

.

Private sector or public-private partnerships. Identify any planned private school
funding programs and whether there are plans for collaborative private funding forgovernment schools.

Local Partners
The government departments of education and finance at national and district levels should be
consulted as key stakeholders. Any NGOs and other international donors that are now, or plan tobe, involved in funding new school infrastructure should also be consulted. Private donors andbusinesses involved in new school construction should be identified and consulted as well.

Technical ExpertiseThis activity should be carried out by persons with expertise in finance and specific experience andknowledge of the construction industry in the country under consideration.

OutputA summary should be produced listing current and planned investments and funding mechanisms
and including any factors that have influenced the characteristics and quality of school infrastructure.

35

|

Step 3: Financial Environment Module 2: Current and Planned Investment

3.2.2

3.2.2
Identify current and future investment
programs (repair/retrofitting) for
existing school infrastructure
objective
Guidance
The financial framework for existing school infrastructure should be understood in order to alignpotential investment opportunities and recognize potential financial constraints. This activity
explores the current and planned sources of funding for repair and retrofitting of existing school
infrastructure.
The following should be considered:.

Government. Identify any current or planned national repair/retrofitting programsand determine if they involved making schools safer or were undertaken just for
maintenance. Understanding the government resource allocation for maintenance iscritical, as maintenance will be required to ensure long-term durability of the existingand planned school infrastructure. The MoE’s budget is usually among the largest
public sector investments, and a significant part of that budget goes to investment
in new infrastructure. For these reasons, the retrofitting, repair, and maintenance ofschool infrastructure usually face serious budgetary constraints.

.

NGOs, INGOs, international donors. Identify who was active in the past in funding
national or local repair/retrofitting programs for existing schools.

.

Private sector or public-private partnerships. Determine whether other private
funding contributed to school repairs and upgrades in the past.

It is important to clarify if third-party funding has assisted in maintenance of existing schools, sincesuch funding can suggest the extent of government resources allocated to maintain schools.
The purpose of current or planned investment programs for existing school infrastructure should beclarified; possible purposes include retrofitting to reduce the vulnerability of school infrastructure aspart of a disaster mitigation program, repair as part of a disaster response and recovery program, andrepair for routine maintenance.

36

|

Step 3: Financial Environment Module 2: Current and Planned Investment

Local Partners
The government departments of education and finance at national and district levels should be
consulted as key stakeholders. Any NGOs and other international donors who are involved infunding school repairs or retrofitting should also be consulted. Private donors and businesses
involved in school repairs or retrofitting should be identified and consulted as well.

Technical ExpertiseThis activity should be carried out by persons with expertise in finance and specific experience andknowledge of school maintenance and upgrading strategies in the country under consideration.

OutputA summary should be produced listing current and planned investments and funding mechanismsthat contribute toward maintaining or improving existing school infrastructure.

37

|

Step 3: Financial Environment Module 2: Current and Planned Investment

3.3.1

3.3.1
Identify the funding mechanisms, investment
requirements, and key decision makers
objective
Guidance
The financing framework for school infrastructure largely determines what options are aﬀordable
under a safer school program. In order to access funding or meet approvals, any proposed investment
opportunities should be aligned with existing funding mechanisms and specific requirements.
This activity identifies investment policies, funding schemes, and financing mechanisms as wellas the requirements for mobilization for any proposed investments. It should also identify the key
decision makers who facilitate the existing funding processes that enable school infrastructure implementation.
The analysis of the investment policies, funding schemes, and financing mechanisms should consider
both the private and public sectors as well as donor funding, and it should also determine any
diﬀerences between new construction (usually a significant part of the education budget) and repair
and rehabilitation (often constrained). The size of budgets should be determined as well as how
they are allocated and distributed (e.g., whether they depend on education service, region or district,urban or rural, etc.) Centrally funded infrastructure provides a single point of entry for potential
investments to tap into, and may be more likely to influence change at national scale. Decentralized
funding provides an opportunity to target high-risk areas and tailor investment opportunities for
specific locations. It is useful to obtain disaggregated district-level expenditure data to provide amore detailed breakdown of the costs and budgetary distribution.
An understanding of the financial flows and key decision makers in the processes will help to define
rehabilitation and replacement strategies more eﬀectively.

Local Partners
This activity should start with discussions with government departments to identify the key
decision makers and determine which department they reside in. This should also be corroborated
through discussion with school management committees, INGOs, NGOs, and other private donors.

Technical ExpertiseThis activity should be carried out by persons with expertise in investment policy and financemechanisms who have experience and knowledge of the finance system in the country under consideration.

OutputA summary report should be produced that outlines the investment policies, funding mechanisms,
and requirements for school infrastructure implementation; lists key decision makers; and analyzes
decision makers’ strengths and weaknesses.
38|

Step 3: Financial Environment Module 2: Current and Planned Investment

39

|

Step 3: Financial Environment Module 2: Current and Planned Investment

3.3.1
40

Disaster Risk Analysis

Step 4
Disaster Risk Analysis
Purpose4

Objectives

To provide TTLs with a step-by-stepguide to quantifying the potential
damage and losses to school infrastructure due to adverse natural events ofvarious intensities and frequencies.

Assess whether is it feasible to undertake the analysis with theavailable information and determine the approach to take
Build the components of a disaster risk assessment for school
infrastructure
Quantify disaster risk of school infrastructure—from the spatial
distribution of risk to risk metrics
Inform the prioritization of risk reduction intervention measures
for school infrastructure

moduleactivity

objective

4.1.1 Define risk assessment objective
4.1.2 Undertake a hazard analysis

4.1 Risk Components
Analysis

4.1.3 Analyze the exposure of school infrastructure

4.1.4 Analyze the vulnerability of school infrastructure

4.2 Risk Quantification

4.2.1 Carry out disaster risk assessment
for school infrastructure

4.3 Informing of Prioritization of Interventions

4.3.1 Inform the prioritization processes for risk
reduction in school infrastructure

A disaster risk assessment will allow the team to build a risk baseline, which will be used (1) to identify and prioritize
investment needs to ensure school infrastructure safety, and (2) to monitor the progress of risk reduction programs.
The disaster risk assessment methodology is outlined in Module 4.2. This assessment could be based on a probabilistic
approach for relevant hazards like earthquake and windstorm. For other hazards, the methodology should be based on
the specific hazard conditions and the scope of the safe school project. The assessment will need to include an analysis of
the hazards potentially aﬀecting the region where the school is located (Activity 4.1.2); an exposure model (Activity 4.1.3);
and an understanding of the school infrastructure’s structural vulnerability to the identified hazards (Activity 4.1.4). The
output format from Module 4.1 should be aligned with the input required for the risk assessment methodology appliedin Module 4.2.

Deliverables
A report should be produced that summarizes the key results of the disaster risk assessment. In addition, a databaseshould be created that includes relevant risk metrics in terms of potential losses for each school facility and a spatial
analysis of the results. These products will include key elements to inform a proposal for prioritizing interventions.

41|Step 4: Disaster Risk Analysis Module 1: Risk Components Analysis

4.1.1
Define risk assessment objective
4.1.1

objective
Guidance
Under this activity the team should determine how the results of the risk assessment are expected
to be used. This discussion should be based on the results of Activity 1.1.1, the overview of the school
infrastructure condition (Step 1), and the MoE’s main objectives for rehabilitation and improvementof school infrastructure. This decision about how to use risk assessment results will have implications for the level of input detail (resolution), format, and quality of the relevant information. Data
resolution, format, and quality should be determined prior to developing Activities 4.1.2, 4.1.3, and4.1.4 to ensure consistency in the results (see figure 8). The assessment criteria should be agreed
upon with the stakeholders and typically might include avoiding or reducing loss of life, reducing
physical damages in the infrastructure, and reducing financial losses in the portfolio.

OutputA database should be created that includes information on existing hazards and school infrastructure exposure and vulnerability in the studied area. This database should be analyzed to assess thequality of the information included in it.

42|

Step 4: Disaster Risk Analysis Module 1: Risk Components Analysis

objective

4.1.2

4.1.2
Undertake a hazard analysis

Guidance
This activity aims to quantify the intensity and probability of occurrence of selected hazards as an
input for a disaster risk assessment (Module 4.2). Using the existing hazard information collected in
Activity 1.1.1, hazards should be qualitatively prioritized in order to determine which hazards are themost relevant in the selected area. A more detailed analysis could be then undertaken for the selectedhazards as an input for the risk assessment. This analysis will include determining the intensity andfrequency for each hazard that could potentially aﬀect the school infrastructure. The spatial distribution of the intensity of each hazard for a given probability of occurrence (return period) could be
used to inform new school infrastructure construction.
Hazard data sets and maps may already exist, in which case they should be assessed for quality andcompleteness. Any new information available should be assessed and integrated into the hazard
analysis to improve the model. The following sources of information may be useful:.

Existing hazard event catalogues that include physical characteristics of the events,
which could be used to define critical events for a scenario risk assessment.

Historical events intensity maps.

Hazard maps.

Soil and geological information; topographical and hydrological information at the
local and regional levels.

Global hazard information

The metric used to represent the hazard intensity should be consistent with the approach used todefine the vulnerability information, and the resolution should be consistent with the resolution of
the exposure (see Activity 4.1.3).

Local Partners
Relevant partners will have local knowledge and expertise in hazard assessment; they may be foundin technical agencies in the country, specifically in seismic monitoring networks, geological surveys,
and university engineering departments and research centers.

Technical ExpertiseThis activity should be carried out by highly skilled technical consultants with expertise in theanalysis of the specific natural hazards being considered, with input from local technical agencies.

43|

Step 4: Disaster Risk Analysis Module 1: Risk Components Analysis

Output
The following should be produced under this activity:

4.1.2
44

a.

A technical summary note of the existing hazard information, including theapproaches or methodologies used to generate this information (including quality
assurance and quality control procedures followed)b.

Probabilistic hazard information produced for the studied areac.

Hazard maps for given return periodsd.

Historical scenarios for hazard events in the studied area

|

4.1.3
Analyze the exposure ofschool infrastructure
objective

4.1.3

Step 4: Disaster Risk Analysis Module 1: Risk Components Analysis

Guidance
This activity aims to build an exposure model for the school infrastructure based on the informationcollected in Step 1, including the location and key characteristics of the school infrastructure (e.g.,construction material and year, replacement or construction value).
School buildings need to be categorized by structural typology based on the material of the construction. If the replacement value of the infrastructure is not known, each typology will need to be
assigned a unit value of construction so that an estimated economical value of the infrastructure canbe calculated.
An exposure data set will therefore be created, including an inventory of assets at risk, each one withan assigned replacement value. This information should be aligned with the hazard metrics (Activity
4.2.1) and vulnerability metrics used throughout the risk assessment; please refer to Activity 4.2.2
for further explanation. A detailed cost analysis will be carried out for the actual retrofitting andreconstruction options, as further elaborated in Activity 5.1.2.

Local Partners
MoEs and/or MoPWs may be able to determine structural typologies used for school infrastructure
and associated construction costs.

Technical Expertise
Construction typologies should be defined by professionally qualified structural engineers withspecialized knowledge of hazard-resistant construction. Construction costs should be ascertained inconsultation with appropriate construction industry experts.

Output
The following should be produced:a.

A database of the structural typologies identified, including their main characteristicsb.

An exposure model for school infrastructure that includes at a minimum the school
ID, the facility’s structural typology, the occupation, and the replacement value

45

|

Step 4: Disaster Risk Analysis Module 1: Risk Components Analysis

4.1.4

4.1.4
Analyze the vulnerability ofschool infrastructure
objective
Guidance
This activity aims to identify the susceptibility of school infrastructure to selected hazards, in orderassign the vulnerability function1 to each proposed structural typology. A vulnerability analysis
helps to quantify the severity of the damage caused by a particular hazard to a given infrastructure.
Vulnerability analysis takes into account building configuration—e.g., construction systems, building
components, and building condition (including year of construction and level of maintenance).
The following factors may for example contribute to the seismic vulnerability of a specific typology:
irregular building floors, irregularity in elevation, heavy roofs, large openings, soft or weak stories,
short columns, large wall panels, and weak foundations. Vulnerability functions are derived fromfragility functions, which are developed for the diﬀerent structural typologies identified and agreed
upon with local experts.
There are two main approaches to developing vulnerability functions:

1/

46

a.

Empirical. Where suﬃcient loss or damage data exist, empirical vulnerability
functions can be developed on the basis of past observations of loss or damage due
to a particular hazard experienced by buildings of a particular typology. Conversely,
if there are very limited building loss or damage data from previous hazards inthe selected area, expert knowledge of overseas damage data can be used to adjust
existing global fragility functions to local conditions.

b.

Analytical. Analytical vulnerability functions may be calculated using structural
engineering technical analysis, which stems from industry standard capacity curves
and subsequent fragility functions produced for assessed infrastructure.

Vulnerability functions provide a direct assessment of the diﬀerent levels of damage to the infrastructure associated with diﬀerent hazards and hazard intensities, namely the damage ratio.

|Step 4: Disaster Risk Analysis Module 1: Risk Components Analysis

Local Partners

Collaboration with local, regional, and international research institutions may also provide access to
the latest available information, or provide an opportunity to work together to develop vulnerability
functions and adapt them to the local context.

4.1.4

Local architects, civil engineering professional bodies, or local civil engineering consultants should
undertake vulnerability assessments and categorization of school buildings.

Technical ExpertiseThis activity should be carried out by a professionally experienced structural engineering team orindividual with specific expertise in structural analysis and knowledge of local construction building
codes and methods.

OutputVulnerability functions should be generated for each structural typology defined. Vulnerability
functions proposed should be consistent with other components of the disaster risk assessment.

47

|

Step 4: Disaster Risk Analysis Module 2: Informing of Prioritization of Interventions

4.2.1

4.2.1
Carry out disaster risk assessment
for school infrastructure
objective
Guidance
The purpose of a disaster risk assessment is to quantify the potential damages and losses of school
infrastructure (physical/structural risk). The output from the assessment can inform investment
prioritization and options for risk reduction.
The basic steps involved in the risk assessment process are as follows:a.

Hazard analysis (see Activity 4.1.2)b.

Exposure model (see Activity 4.1.3)

c.

Definition of structural vulnerability per typology (see Activity 4.1.4)

d.

Risk quantification

The following risk assessment methodologies or approaches are recommended among others:

48.

Probabilistic risk assessment. Using the input data of the hazard analysis, thisanalysis is based on all possible hazard scenarios that the infrastructure being
evaluated could face. It can provide a particularly useful detailed assessment forearthquake and windstorm risk. With this approach it is possible to estimate theexpected cost in terms of diﬀerent metrics attached to the occurrence of hazard
events. Probabilistic risk assessments have results in terms of annual average
losses (AALs), probable maximum losses (PMLs), and other financial metrics. These
assessments are based on probabilistic hazard information, available exposure
information, and probabilistic vulnerability functions.

.

Deterministic (scenario) assessment. In certain cases, it could be useful to employ
a simplified methodology using a single hazard scenario to determine the potential
losses that could result from a particular hazard. Scenario-based risk assessment
results make it possible to oﬀer stakeholders comparisons to historical events. Single
scenario assessments should be based on given hazard scenario information, available
exposure information, and vulnerability information (that could be probabilistic tofacilitate a range for the results).

|Step 4: Disaster Risk Analysis Module 2: Informing of Prioritization of Interventions

risk assessment methodology

figure 8

Scenario (Deterministic)Multi-scenario (using probabilistic information)

Disaster risk
assessment approach.

4.2.1

Fully probabilistic (e.g. Montecarlo)

Hazardscale
Level of detail of the hazard
information should beappropriate for the hazard
and the location

Exposure

hazard metrics
e.g. for earthquakes:

consistent
metrics

damage metrics

Peak Ground Acceleration
Spectral Acceleration
Marco Seismic Intensity(MMI)

Vulnerability

Light
Moderate
Heavy
Collapse

Local Partners
The MoE is the key stakeholder and should agree to the assessment criteria and objectives.

Technical ExpertiseThis activity should be carried out by hazard risk modeling specialists.

OutputDepending on the risk assessment methodology, the expected output will vary. Loss exceedance
curves2, PML3 curves, and AAL4 curves should be produced as part of a probabilistic assessment.
Other outputs may include.

Potential structural damage or casualties.

GIS-compatible spatial data sets comprising hazard maps and diﬀerent loss metrics

A summary report should be prepared containing the results and findings of the risk assessment andincluding the outputs above as appropriate.

2/

A loss exceedance curve shows the annual frequency of exceedance for a determined value of losses.

3/

PML (probable maximum loss) is the maximum loss amount for a given return period for a given hazard.

4/

AAL (average annual loss) is the sum for all scenarios of the product of the expected loss and the annual
frequency of occurrence of every scenario.

49

|

Step 4: Disaster Risk Analysis Module 3: Informing of Prioritization of Interventions

4.3.1

4.3.1
Inform the prioritization processes for risk
reduction in school infrastructure
objective
Guidance
The results of the risk assessment provide a quantitative estimation of risk for the entire portfolio, as
well as by structural typology and spatial distribution. Risk assessment reveals the main vulnerability or hazard factors. Based on this understanding, the following steps could be taken:.

Rank the physical risk for the school facilities in order to identify those at highest
risk, and calculate distribution of risk across the portfolio.

Disaggregate the portfolio by subgroups of school facilities that share similar risk
conditions and characteristics.

Disaggregate the portfolio by structural typology.

Disaggregate the portfolio by spatial criteria (urban, rural) and risk condition.

Define potential risk reduction alternatives to maximize life safety, potential damage
reduction, and post-disaster operational continuity

The design of a risk reduction strategy is based on the information generated from these steps.
At this point the team may seek to consult with the MoE in order to discuss the results and beginidentifying potential intervention alternatives in keeping with the political, financial, technical, andcultural context of the country (this is the objective of Step 5).
It is important to note that further analysis (e.g., cost-benefit analysis) might be required of the risk
assessment results in order to design the risk reduction strategy. Thus new variables (e.g., financial)are introduced into the decision making process through complementary analytic work.

Local Partners
The prioritization criteria should be agreed upon with stakeholders such as the MoE, MoPW, anddepartment of disaster management.

Technical ExpertiseThis activity requires a consultant with expertise in risk assessment and structural engineering(with appropriate knowledge of the relevant hazard).

OutputA summary of the prioritization criteria should be produced, along with comparison tables of criticalscenarios for the intervention options (such as reconstruction, retrofitting, and repair).

50

|

4.3.1

Step 4: Disaster Risk Analysis Module 3: Informing of Prioritization of Interventions

51

|

Step 4: Disaster Risk Analysis Module 3: Informing of Prioritization of Interventions

4.3.1
52

Safer School Investment Opportunities

Step 5
Safer School Investment Opportunities
PurposeObjectives

To recommend investment scenarios to
the MoE that integrate safety into both
existing and new school infrastructure.

Identify, define, and prioritize lines of intervention to increase
the safety of existing school infrastructure and improve theplanning and building regulatory framework
Identify, define, and prioritize opportunities for investment in
integrating safety in school infrastructure

5

Approach government on investment opportunities

moduleactivity

objective

5.1.1 Enable structural rehabilitation/retrofitting

5.1 Existing School
Infrastructure

5.1.2 Enable functional rehabilitation
5.1.3 Design intervention strategy andinvestment scenarios
5.1.4 Undertake cost-benefit analysis

5.2.1 Consider planning and design gaps and opportunities

5.2 Implementation Process

5.2.2 Consider regulatory framework improvements

5.2.3 Consider implementation process adjustments

Deliverables
A proposal for an intervention plan should be produced that includes a roadmap prioritizing possible investment
scenarios. These will form the foundation for the government’s specific action plan and its eﬀorts to seek technical andfinancial support from international banks, donors, NGOs, and the private sector.

53

|

Step 5: Safer School Investment Opportunities Module 1: Existing School Infrastructure

5.1.1
Enable structural rehabilitation/retrofitting
objectives
Guidance
5.1.1

This activity aims to consolidate the requirements and alternatives for the structural rehabilitation/
retrofitting of the school infrastructure portfolio based on the results of the risk assessment, inparticular Activity 4.3.1. It involves the following:.

Defining the need for, and priorities of, a field campaign to undertake detailed
structural inspections, by diﬀerent structural typologies.

Defining the need for complementary analytic work
(e.g., structural engineering analysis) to inform the intervention plan.

Reviewing previous experience in the country on school retrofitting.

Proposing criteria for the selection of retrofitting versus replacement.

Quantifying and recommending retrofitting alternatives for diﬀerent structural
typologies.

Estimating a preliminary investment plan for structural rehabilitation

Retrofitting is an expensive and disruptive measure whose feasibility should be carefully evaluated.
Toward this end, diﬀerent building performance levels can be defined and graduate accordingly
the retrofitting strategy. The concept of setting performance objectives for school infrastructure isreferred to in various guidance materials; see also Activity 2.1.2. The highest standard, “continuous
occupancy,” is expensive to achieve and is usually reserved for hospitals, emergency service centers,
and similar critical infrastructure. It may be appropriate for schools where they are expected
to function as postdisaster shelters or for continuous education. The more typical performance
objective level for new schools is “immediate occupancy,” which considers some damage acceptable,
as long as the infrastructure investment is largely protected. For a low-cost minimum retrofit, “lifesafety” is often considered to be the acceptable performance standard and can often achieve code
compliance.
The diﬃcult economic decision lies in setting acceptable cost criteria to decide whether to replace
unsafe schools with new schools, or to minimally retrofit them. When undertaking the costcomparison of these options, it is important to note that the level of damage (and therefore theresidual cost) of repairing or replacing new or retrofitted investments varies based in part on theperformance criteria.

54|Step 5: Safer School Investment Opportunities Module 1: Existing School Infrastructure

Local Partners
The performance criteria should be agreed upon with the government, as it will form the basis of theretrofitting and redesign options prioritized under the cost-benefit analysis.
The identification and analysis of retrofitting solutions should be made with the participation of
local senior structural engineers to ensure the solutions are appropriate, viable, and cost-eﬀective.
Local academic institutions may also have relevant expertise.

Technical Expertise

5.1.1

The performance criteria and retrofitting options should be coordinated with the MoE, MoPW, andMinistry of Finance.

The retrofitting options should be developed by an engineering consultant with expertise instructural engineering and specific experience in the hazards that pose a significant risk to school
infrastructure (as identified in Activity 4.1.1).

OutputA report should be produced to serve as the basis for a school retrofitting program.

55

|Step 5: Safer School Investment Opportunities Module 1: Existing School Infrastructure

5.1.2
Enable functional rehabilitation
objectives
Guidance
5.1.2

This activity aims to identify the needs for improving the architectural, service, and environmental conditions of the existing school infrastructure. There are two main reasons to integrate thisdimension into the Safe School program: first, safety is only one of a number of attributes that
school infrastructure should possess, and second, public investment projects usually integrate both
structural and functional rehabilitation works.
Functional characteristics are related to campus layout, buildings’ architectural characteristics, accessibility, energy supply, communication connection, and water and sanitation. The following steps
may be followed to define the functional rehabilitation needs for a specific portfolio:.

Define functional indicators to establish the current condition of existing infrastructure (based on results of Module 1.2).

Establish the gap in functional rehabilitation by analyzing the current condition ofexisting school infrastructure and the planning and building regulation (Activities
2.1.1 and 2.1.2).

Discuss and define priorities with the infrastructure oﬃce regarding functional
needs to be covered in the short, medium, and long term.

Identify potential intervention alternatives for urban and rural areas and define
criteria to integrate structural and functional rehabilitation or replacement ofbuildings.

Estimate a preliminary investment plan

Local Partners
The functional indicators should be identified, reviewed, and agreed upon with the Ministry of
Education, in particular those within the MoE working on functional aspects of infrastructure.
The gap in the functional rehabilitation should be analyzed by a multisectoral team. Local
consultants and firms with expertise can contribute to the analysis to ensure it is appropriate, viable,
and cost-eﬀective.

Technical Expertise
The activity should be carried out by a multidisciplinary team with expertise in areas such asengineering, architecture, water and sanitation, education, and data analysis.

OutputA report should be produced to serve as the basis for a school functional rehabilitation program.
56

|Step 5: Safer School Investment Opportunities Module 1: Existing School Infrastructure

5.1.3
Design intervention strategy
and investment scenarios
objectives

Whether both the structural and functional rehabilitation needs (Activities 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, respectively) have been identified or only the former, the next step is to define a prioritized and aﬀordable
intervention strategy in keeping with the construction and financial environment (Steps 2 and 3),
government priorities (Step 1), and local territorial characteristics (urban or rural). The design of anintervention strategy might follow these steps:.

Define the scope of the intervention strategy in terms of levels of government(national or subnational), geographic interest, and time line.

.

Discuss the objectives and prioritization criteria that will drive the design of thestrategy. These should come from the prior activities.

.

Define the budgeting approach by reviewing previous interventions (if available) andlocal condition of the targeted area.

.

Define the approach for comparing the retrofitting and reconstruction options, suchas cost-benefit analysis (CBA), cost-eﬀective analysis, and multi-criteria analysis.

.

Define a set of intervention scenarios by combining options of retrofitting, reconstruction, and functional rehabilitation to achieve the proposed objectives in the
short, medium, and long term.

.

Conduct comparative analysis for intervention scenarios and consolidate a proposal
for the intervention strategy.

Discuss the proposed strategy with the government. This step envisions a back-andforth process with the MoE to look at preliminary results, adjust the scenarios, andgradually devise a strategy aligned with government’s perspective.

.

Consolidate the proposed intervention strategy in a formal document to be presented
to and discussed with other stakeholders.

5.1.3

Guidance

Local Partners
The scope of the intervention strategies should be defined, discussed, and agreed upon with the MoE.
Government agencies and local universities and consultants may also be able to provide information
on past retrofitting, reconstruction, and functional rehabilitation programs and costs.

Technical Expertise

OutputThis activity should be carried out by a team withexpertise in engineering, economics, and data analysis.

A report should be produced outlining a risk
reduction and rehabilitation strategy for atargeted school infrastructure stock.
57

|

Step 5: Safer School Investment Opportunities Module 1: Existing School Infrastructure

5.1.4
Undertake cost-benefit analysis
objectives
Guidance
5.1.4

The retrofitting and reconstruction options identified in Activity 5.1.3 can be compared through a
cost-benefit analysis; this approach makes it possible determine which investment opportunities will
oﬀer the maximum benefit and to prioritize them accordingly.
CBAs have two primary purposes: to make a compelling argument for investment in the strategic
replacement of school infrastructure, and to facilitate decision making about how to diﬀerentiate
between retrofitting and replacing school facilities.
Comparing the costs and benefits of hard solutions (such as retrofitting or new build) is morestraightforward than evaluating costs and benefits of soft solution investments (such as changing
the regulatory framework). Therefore this CBA activity is focused on the hard solutions, with the soft
solutions considered separately in Activities 5.2.2 and 5.2.3.
Cost-benefit analysis can be approached as follows:58a.

Scope and context. Set out the objectives and qualitative criteria; define theparameters, including the key indicators; and set a discount rate (particularly forlong-term benefits).

b.

Feasibility and option analysis. Screen the options identified in Activity 5.1.3 against
the qualitative criteria to establish a short list of ranked suitable alternatives andselect preferred options based on their net present values in financial and economic
terms. Using the revised vulnerability curves, the risk analysis can be repeated tomeasure the potential benefit of introducing the risk reduction measures.

c.

Financial analysis. Assess the costs of the physical intervention with the direct
benefits such as the saving from avoided or reduced damages. In addition tocomparing the investment options with one another, the analysis may also comparethem with a “do nothing” baseline scenario.

d.

Sensitivity analysis. Identify the most critical variables, and highlight the uncertainties and assumptions that should be communicated to the key decision makers.

e.

Conclusion. Determine how many building typologies or locations to strengthen or
rebuild.

|

Step 5: Safer School Investment Opportunities Module 1: Existing School Infrastructure.

Cost-eﬀective analysis. This type of analysis is useful where costs are easy to predict
and benefits are diﬃcult to evaluate. It involves a comparison of alternative options;for a given output level, it seeks the minimum net present value of costs, and for agiven cost, it seeks the maximum output level.

.

Multicriteria analysis. This type of analysis balances the needs of multiple stakeholders to consider the costs and benefits that do not ordinarily have an economic value,such as biodiversity, well-being, or community spirit.

Local Partners
The cost of the retrofitting/rebuilding options should be estimated based on advice from local
surveyors and available local and international data on market costs. Government agencies and local
consultants may also be able to provide information from current building/retrofitting programs.

5.1.4

Alternative approaches may be taken, such as the following:Technical ExpertiseThis activity should be carried out by a team with expertise in finance, economics, quantity
surveying, and disaster risk reduction.

OutputA technical report should be produced that documents the sample retrofits developed, the analyticalmodels used to define upgraded vulnerability curves, and the results of the CBAs. In addition, asummary should be produced that includes recommendations for and prioritization of retrofitting
options.

59

|

Step 5: Safer School Investment Opportunities Module 1: Existing School Infrastructure

5.2.1
Consider planning and design
gaps and opportunities
objectives
Guidance
5.2.1

Using the information and analysis in Steps 1, 2, and 3, it is possible to look for opportunities toimprove the planning and design of school infrastructure in order to promote safer schools.
The following should be evaluated for identifying opportunities:

60.

Model school designs. If these exist already, they should be reviewed to determine
how they could be improved to better resist the identified hazards. Previous casestudies have shown that typical upgrades made to achieve a life-safety performancelevel for earthquakes involve less than a 10 percent increase in the cost of construction.

.

Value engineering. Existing designs should be assessed to see if they can be value
engineered to be more cost eﬀective. This step will help to increase the impact of acapped investment.

.

Communication. Improvements should be made in the way design information iscommunicated to local builders; specifically, more engaging and understandable
drawings and specifications should be used.

.

Technical guidelines. Guidelines for building (including extension and modification),
retrofitting, and site selection and planning typically seek to ensure that safe building
practices are incorporated into non-engineered buildings. There is an opportunity
to develop (or update existing) guidance documents to illustrate how to apply therequirements of the code to small (community-built) schools. Schools in the examples
must be typical of the local context in terms of structural typology and hazards.

|

Step 5: Safer School Investment Opportunities Module 2: Implementation Process

Local Partners
The model school designs and value-engineering solutions should be discussed with the MoE. Local
design consultants and construction contractors can help to ensure that designs are appropriate,viable, and cost-eﬀective. Local academic institutions may also have relevant expertise here and in
the assessment of demographic information to identify spatial investment priorities.

Technical Expertise
The model designs, value-engineering solutions, and technical guidelines should be developed bya design consultant with expertise in structural engineering and site planning and with specificexperience in the hazards that pose a significant risk to school infrastructure (as identified in
Activity 4.1.1).

5.2.1

The performance criteria and design options should be coordinated with the MoE and MoPW. The
spatial planning should be coordinated with the government department responsible for geohazard
information.

The spatial analysis should be conducted by a planning specialist.

OutputA summary should be produced listing recommendations, options, and priorities for a government
action plan. It should include updating of model school designs and of technical guidelines.

61

|

Step 5: Safer School Investment Opportunities Module 2: Implementation Process

5.2.2
Consider regulatory framework
improvements
objectives
Guidance
5.2.2

Using the information and analysis in Steps 1, 2, and 3, it is possible to look for opportunities toimprove the regulatory framework of school infrastructure in order to promote safer schools.
The following provide potential lines of action:.

.

Updates to regulatory documents, such as
1

Hazard and risk maps (with the resolution required by education infrastructure). Updates would ensure that maps include appropriate hazards at a usefullevel of detail to inform land use plans, site selection, and site planning.

1

Land use plans. Updates would ensure that plans consider known hazards andappropriate distribution of schools to suit the spatial population/demographic.

1

Planning guidelines. Updates would ensure that guidelines are consistent
with other regulatory documents, are current (so that schools are appropriately situated and planned), and provide guidance on appropriate
mitigation measures to reduce the exposure of schools.

1

Building codes. Updates would ensure that codes are consistent with otherregulatory documents and include current understanding and best practice,appropriate structural typologies, and hazards that aﬀect school infrastructure. Stricter structural design requirements constitute a relatively
small portion of the overall construction cost of new buildings and are acost-eﬀective investment against future hazards. Building codes should
also include guidance for retrofitting and repair of existing buildings.

Institutional adjustments, such as
1

Design checking and approval process. Adjustments would ensurethat there is a standard, streamlined design process with checking andapproval stages throughout the design phase (prior to construction).

1

Enforcement of regulatory documents. An eﬀective enforcement system
could be established by training and licensing professional engineers to act asreviewers and undertake site inspections, exert tighter control over engineeringand construction quality, and define consequences for noncompliance.

Consideration should be given to whether private schools are subject to the same regulatory
processes. How private schools are regulated may have a significant impact on the nation’s school
safety, particularly if private schools constitute a substantial portion of the nation’s schools.
62|

Step 5: Safer School Investment Opportunities Module 2: Implementation Process

Local Partners
Proposed adjustments to the regulatory documents and process, including design checking andapproval procedures, should be made in collaboration with the appropriate regulatory body andthe MoPW. Institutional adjustment recommendations should be informed by relevant stakeholder
consultation.

Structural engineers, planners, and hazard specialists should review existing regulatory documents
and identify opportunities for improvement. Institutional adjustments should be proposed bypersons with specific expertise in the construction regulatory and institutional environment.

Output

5.2.2

Technical Expertise

A summary should be produced listing recommendations and prioritizations for adjustments andimprovements to the regulatory and institutional processes.

63|

Step 5: Safer School Investment Opportunities Module 2: Implementation Process

5.2.3
Consider implementation
process adjustments
objectives
5.2.3

Guidance
Using the information and analysis in Steps 1, 2, and 3, it is possible to look for opportunities toimprove the implementation of school infrastructure in order to promote safer schools.
The following provide potential investment opportunities:.

.

.

Build capacity of the construction industry.
1

Provide training and/or improve education (or training fortrainers) on safe school construction to develop and strengthen
the competencies of the construction industry.

1

Incorporate education on known hazards into university education.

1

Introduce requirements for professional qualifications for engineers andarchitects designing, reviewing, and checking school infrastructure.

1

Introduce certification schemes to confirm skills and experience of contractors.

Improve quality assurance.
1

Propose continuous on-site inspections by an independent third party rather
than periodic inspections to maintain a consistent quality performance level.

1

Introduce quality assurance methodology and tools in the deliveryof school infrastructure to clarify roles and responsibilities, andintroduce checklists and audits for checking and certifying the qualityof materials and workmanship on site and in the supply chain.

Seek clarity, accountability, and clear lines of communication in school implementation processes.
1

.

64

Define roles and responsibilities for national and local
government and other institutional stakeholders.

Improve construction management practices.
1

Streamline procurement and management processes.

1

Define roles and responsibilities, and clearly delineate responsibility at each step of the process.

|Step 5: Safer School Investment Opportunities Module 2: Implementation Process

Local Partners
Proposed adjustments to the financial implementation process should be made in collaboration with
the MoE, MoPW, and Ministry of Finance.
Recommendations for improvements to the physical implementation processes (such as construction management and quality assurance) should be made in collaboration with local contractors,
suppliers, and the MoPW.

Financial implementation adjustments should be recommended by consultants with expertise ineconomics, finance, and the construction industry. Infrastructure implementation adjustments
should be made by consultants with expertise in the construction industry, contracting, quantity
surveying, and supply chains.

5.2.3

Technical Expertise

OutputA summary should be produced listing recommendations and prioritizations for adjustments andimprovements to the financial and infrastructure implementation processes.

65Glossary

Glossarybuilding regulation
Local and national legislation related to the design of theschool infrastructure (e.g., structural design of buildings).

risk
The combination of the probability of an event and its
negative consequences.

deterministic analysis
Approach to assessing risk that considers an individual
event with a certain probability of occurrence.

risk analysis
The process that seeks to comprehend the nature of risk
and to determine the extent of risk.

earthquake resistantQuality of structures designed and built in accordancewith seismic codes and guidance at a minimum.

risk assessment
A methodology to determine the nature and extent
of risk by analyzing potential hazards and evaluating
existing conditions of vulnerability that together could
potentially harm exposed people, property, services,
livelihoods, and the environment on which they depend.

mitigation
The action of reducing the risk.
nonstructural elements
Elements that do not contribute to the stability of thebuilding, such as finishes, windows, ceilings, and building
equipment.
performance objective
Used to define the maximum risk level that can be
tolerated in terms of damage and disruption. The
performance objective for a hospital or school may behigher than for individual houses.
planning regulation
Local and national legislation related to the physicalplanning of school infrastructure (e.g., site selection,
arrangement of buildings on the site, interfaces withservices, size and layout of buildings)
probabilistic analysis
Approach to assessing risk that considers all possible andrelevant events.
reconstruction
The action or process of rebuilding a building or part of abuilding that has been damaged or destroyed.
rehabilitation
The action or process of returning a building to its
former condition.
relocation
The action or process of rebuilding a building in adiﬀerent location after it was damaged or destroyed, or
because a high level of risk exists in the original location.
repair
The action or process of restoring a damaged building toa good condition.

66

RVA (rapid visual assessment)
A methodology to quickly inspect and evaluate buildings.
It can be used in postdisaster contexts in damaged areas
with minimum manpower to judge whether a building
can be reoccupied.
school campus or facility
The site of the school where all school buildings arelocated. Typical characteristics of the campus to beevaluated are the location, number of buildings, andbuilding layouts.
seismic retrofit
The addition of new technology or features to an existingbuilding aimed at improving its earthquake resistance.
This approach may fall short of code standards in order
to allow pragmatic incremental enhancement.
structural system
Set of building elements that contribute to both thevertical and horizontal stability of the building.
structural typology
Engineering categorization of a building based on theprincipal vertical and lateral stability system from which
it has been built. The structural systems of a building
are those that resist gravity, earthquake, wind, and othertypes of loads. These are called structural components
and include columns (posts, pillars); beams (girders,
joists); floor or roof sheathing, slabs; load-bearing walls(i.e., walls designed to support the building weight and/or
provide lateral resistance); and foundations (mat, spreadfootings, piles).

Glossary67

About GFDRR:The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery(GFDRR) is a global partnership that helps developing countries
better understand and reduce their vulnerabilities to natural
hazards and adapt to climate change. Working with over 400
local, national, regional, and international partners, GFDRR
provides grant financing, technical assistance, training andknowledge sharing activities to mainstream disaster andclimate risk management in policies and strategies. Managed
by the World Bank, GFDRR is supported by 34 countries and 9international organizations