APRU-IRIDeS
Multi-Hazards Program
Campus Safety Report 2015

APRU-IRIDeS Multi-Hazards Program
Campus Safety Report 2015

IRIDeS, Tohoku University
International and Domestic Liaison Office468-1-S302 Aoba, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai
980-8579 Japanwww.irides.tohoku.ac.jp/

The APRU Secretariat
NUS Shaw Foundation Alumni House, 2F
11 Kent Ridge Drive, Singapore 119244
Singaporewww.apru.org

Author: Takako Izumi (Associate Professor, IRIDeS, Tohoku Universtiy and Program Coordinator of the APRU
Multi-Hazards Program)
Supervision: Yuich Ono (Professor, IRIDeS, Tohoku University and Chairperson of the APRU Multi-Hazards
Program), Andre Edelhoff (Program Director, Research and Enterprise Partnerships, APRU)
Data aggregation: Yuko Sato (IRIDeS, Tohoku University)2

Table of Contents
1.

2.

3.

Introduction…………………

3.1 Governance Actions…………………

Outline of Campus Safety Survey…………………

3.2 Risk Assessment…………………

Survey Results…………………

3.3 Disaster Preparedness Mechanism and Capacity…………………

3.4 Response Capacity

3.5 Support System for Students, Faculty members, and Staff

3.6 Data Preservation

3.7 Others

3.7.1 What are the major challenges to develop the mechanisms, systems,
and activities of disaster preparedness on campus?

3.7.2 What are the activities that your university has prioritized; however,…………………
…………………
…………………
…………………
…………………
…………………

they have not yet been materialized in terms of disaster preparedness on campus?

3.7.3 What type of assistance would your university like to have from other …………………
PARU institutions in terms of disaster preparedness or response on campus? 4.

5.

3.7.4 Any new ideas for disaster preparedness activities that you think…………………

universities should have and need to adopt (that have not been included in this form).

Summary and Implications

4.1 Key Findings

4.2 Challenges

4.3 Potential
Afterword

Appendix Ⅰ : Activities for disaster preparedness, response and recovery initiatedby the Universities

Appendix Ⅱ : Disaster preparedness related documents/materials developedby the Universities

Appendix Ⅲ : Disaster preparedness capacity by the University…………………

…………………

…………………
…………………
…………………
…………………
…………………
…………………

7

8

9
9

11

13

16

17

19

20
20
20
20
21
22

22

26

26

27
28

30

32

3

The
ThePacificPacificRing
RingofofFire
Fireisisthethemostmostactive
activeseismic
seismicregion
regionininthe
theworld.
world.The
The45
45membermemberuniversities
universitiesofofthe
theAssociation
AssociationofofPacificPacificRim
RimUniversities
Universities(APRU)(APRU)areareconstituted
constituted
aroundaroundthe
theRing
RingofofFire.
Fire.Our
Ourcampuses
campusesare
areunderunderaaconstantconstantthreat
threatofofvarious
variousnatural
naturalPrefacedisasters
disasterssuch
suchasasearthquakes,
earthquakes,floods,
floods,tsunamis
tsunamisandandcyclones.
cyclones.To
Toreduce
reducedisasterdisastervulnerability
vulnerabilityand
andrisks
risksbybyenhancing
enhancingcollaboration
collaborationamong
amongdisasterdisastersciencescienceresearchers
researchers
withinwithinthe
theAsia‐Pacific,
Asia‐Pacific,APRU
APRUandandTohoku
TohokuUniversity
Universityestablishedestablishedthe
theMulti‐Hazards
Multi‐Hazards
The Pacific Ring of Fire is the most active seismic region in the world. The 45 member universities of theProgram
ProgramHub
Hubatatthe
therenowned
renownedInternational
InternationalResearch
ResearchInstitute
Institutefor
forDisaster
DisasterScience
Science
Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) are constituted around the Ring of Fire. Our campuses are(IRIDeS)(IRIDeS)
ininSendai
Sendaiin2013.
2013.The
TheProgram
Programisheaded
headedbybyaacorecoregroupgroup
ofofanddisasterdisasterunder a constantthreatinof
variousnaturaldisasters issuch
as earthquakes,
floods,tsunamis
cyclones. To
scientists
scientists
from
from
nine
nine
APRU
APRU
membermemberuniversities
universities
inin
Chile,
Chile,
China,
China,
ChineseChineseTaipei,Taipei,Japan,
Japan,
reduce disaster vulnerability and risks by enhancing collaboration among disaster science researchers within
ThailandThailandand
andthethe
UnitedUnitedStates.
States.University established the Multi-Hazards Program Hub at the renowned
the Asia-Pacific,
APRU
and Tohoku
International Research Institute for Disaster Science (IRIDeS) in Sendai in 2013. The Program is headed by a

One
One
ofthe
thefirst
projects
projects
ofofthetheMulti‐Hazards
Multi‐Hazards
Program
ProgramHub
Hubwaswastotoself‐analyze
self‐analyze
disasterdisastercoreofgroup
offirstdisasterscientists
fromnine APRU member
universities
in Chile,
China, Chinese
Taipei, Japan,
Thailand and thecapacity
United States.
preparedness
preparedness
capacity
andandcompile
compileguidelines
guidelinesand
andstandards
standardsatatAPRU
APRUcampuses.
campuses.The
The
results
resultsofofthe
the22
22universities
universitieswho
whohavehaveresponded
respondedtotothe
theCampus
CampusSafety
SafetySurvey
Surveywere
were
One of thein
firstprojectsof theUltimately
Multi-Hazards
Hub
was to self-analyze
disaster
preparedness
analyzed
analyzedin thisthisreport.
report.
Ultimately
ititProgram
aims
aims toto
promotepromotethethe needneed
forfor disasterdisastercapacity and compile
guidelines
andstandards
at APRU
APRU
campuses.
The resultsofthe 22 universities
preparedness
preparednessononcampus,
campus,toto
discuss
discuss
how
how
APRU
can
cansupport
supportthetheinitiatives,
initiatives,andandtoto who
have responded
to theCampusSafetySurveywere
analyzedLatest
inthis report.
Ultimately
it aims
to promote
identify
identify
thethenext
next
step
step
totoenhanceenhancethethecapacity.
capacity.
Latestresearch
research
results
results
shouldshouldbebe theneed for disaster preparedness on campus, to discuss how APRU can support the initiatives, and to identify
reflected
reflected
inindisasterdisasterpreparedness
preparednessofofuniversities.
universities.The
Thesafety
safetyofofstudents
studentsand
anduniversity
university
the next step to enhance the capacity. Latest research results should be reflected in disaster preparedness
employees
employeesisisofofutmost
utmostimportanceimportancetotoour
ourmembermemberuniversities.
universities.
of universities. The safety of students and university employees is of utmost importance to our member
universities.

We
We hopehope thatthat thethe reportreport assists
assists member
member andand non‐member
non‐member universities
universities inin thetheimprovement
improvementofofdisasterdisasterpreparedness
preparednesson
oncampuses.
campuses.ItItshould
shouldincrease
increasethethesharing
sharingofof
We hope that the report assists member and non-member universities in the improvement of disaster
good
goodpractices
practicesandandmight
mightalso
alsoprovide
provideinformation
informationfor
foruniversity‐likeuniversity‐likecompanies
companiesoror
preparedness on campuses. It should increase the sharing of good practices and might also provide
organizations.
organizations.
We
Weare
aredelighted
delightedthat
thatthethereport
reportwill
willbebelaunchedlaunchedatatthe
theUN
UNWorldWorld
information for university-like companies or organizations. We are delighted that the report will be launched
Conference
Conference
on
onDisaster
DisasterRisk
Risk
Reduction
Reduction
ininSendai,
Sendai,14‐1814-18
March
March
2015
2015
and
and
we
we
hope
hope
thatit willat the UN World
Conferenceon
Disaster
Risk Reductionin 14‐18
Sendai,
March
2015
and
we
hopethat
that
itit
will
willcontributecontributetotothethedisasterdisastersafetysafetydebates.
debates.
contributeto the disastersafetydebates.

Prof
Prof
Fumihiko
Fumihiko
ImamuraImamuraProf
Fumihiko
Imamura

DrChristopher
Christopher
Tremewan
Tremewan
Dr Dr
Christopher
Tremewan

Director
Director
Director

Secretary
GeneralSecretary
Secretary
GeneralGeneralInternational
Research
InstituteofInternational
International
ResearchResearch
Institute
Institute
ofof
Disaster
Science(IRIDeS)
DisasterDisaster
Science
Science(IRIDeS)(IRIDeS)
TohokuUniversity
TohokuTohokuUniversity
University

Associationof Pacific
Rim
Universities
Association
Association
ofofPacificPacific
Rim
RimUniversities
Universities

5

Acknowledgement

First, the Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) and the International Research Institute of Disaster

Science (IRIDeS) express their sincere gratitude to the 22 Universities that responded to the questionnaire
for their support and contribution to this survey. The 22 universities are: Chulalongkorn University, Far

Eastern Federal University, Fudan University, Keio University, National Taiwan University, National Universityof Singapore, Osaka University, Peking University, The Australian National University, Tohoku University,

University of Auckland, University of California, Irvine, University of California, Los Angeles, University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara, University of Hawaii at Manoa, University of Oregon, University of Tokyo, Universityof Washington, the University of New South Wales Australia, Waseda University, Yonsei University and Zhejian
University. .

In addition, special appreciations go to Prof. John Rundle, University of California, Davis who provided

insightful comments and feedback when the form was developed. The MH program also received continuous
support from the APRU secretariat, based in Singapore. Specifically, the APRU secretariat forwarded andcollected the questionnaires from the Universities. The members of the MH program also acknowledge thetremendous support provided by Ms. Yuko Sato, from the IRIDeS International Cooperation Office, for the data
aggregation.

6

１ Introduction
In 2006–07, the United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) implemented a campaign

entitled, “Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at School.” Through the campaign, the importance of Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRR) efforts, countermeasures, and education was strongly highlighted at schools; however, theneed for disaster preparedness on university campuses was not included. In Universities, the number ofstudents, faculty members, and staff is much larger than lower schools. If Universities are struck by a disaster,
especially a large disaster, without adequate risk reduction measures, the damage and impacts including

assets, buildings, and human lives, can be enormous. Universities must prepare for these emergencies andimplement an appropriate response action at the initial stage. A “safe campus” has been defined as follows:“A safe campus is one that provides students the opportunity to pursue their academic potential in anenvironment free of discrimination, intimidation, or threat to physical or emotional well-being. The safe campus

is one that responds to such threats and takes decisive, corrective action to eliminate them. A safe campus is
one that is monitored for safety, one where the various dimensions of the environment are routinely evaluatedand adjustments are made as appropriate. Creating such an environment is an institutional responsibility andone that requires participation and commitment from multiple parties within the institution.” (Rund, J. A., The
Changing Context of Campus, New Directions for Student Services, Volume 2002, Issue 99, (2002)).

To implement “safe campus,” Universities are required to maintain an environment where students cancontinue their studies and research activities. The Universities must also promptly respond to disasters, makeregular risk assessments on campus, and try to eliminate and/or reduce risks, if identified. “Campus safety,”in this context, focuses only on “safety” against natural disasters, excluding manmade disasters, crime, andhealth issues such as pandemics.

In addition, universities are recognized as a part of the community. Therefore, the preparedness-capacityof universities has a huge impact on the safety and security of human lives and property, even on communities

and universities. Also, Universities will be able to provide assistance to communities by sharing informationand providing spaces as evacuation centers in the response stage.

The Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) and the International Research Institute of Disaster

Science (IRIDeS) launched the APRU-IRIDeS Multi-Hazards (MH) Program in April 2013. The Program aims toharness the collective capabilities of APRU Universities for cutting-edge research on DRR as well as contributeto the policy-making processes on DRR. The key activities of the MH Program include the following:◦◦◦◦

Organizing the annual summer school

Organizing the annual APRU MH Symposium

Fostering the collaboration of disaster research and information/data sharing among APRU members
Contributing to DRR discussions at international and regional levels and the policy-making process

Furthermore, the core group of the MH program agreed on the need for enhancing the preparedness

capacity on campus and that the MH program actively promotes the concept among the APRU Universities
at the beginning. The core group considers that as a network of universities, APRU has a responsibility todevelop, internationally promote, and help implement disaster preparedness on university campuses.

7

２ Outline of Campus Safety Survey
A survey form was distributed to the Universities to collect current information on the status of the

preparedness capacity to natural disasters on campus, including their activities and initiatives. Furthermore,
the survey requested the Universities to identify the challenges and recommendations for the futurepreparedness plan. On the basis of the survey results and the issues identified, the intent of the MH programis as follows: to promote the need for disaster preparedness on campus; to discuss how the APRU can support
the initiatives; and to identify the next step to enhance the capacity. Moreover, the MH Program also aims totarget universities all over the world, eventually beyond the APRU Universities, to share the experience andlessons learned, and strengthen the capacity of campus safety globally. However, this program does not intend

to advocate the same level of campus disaster preparedness to all the universities, as each country and region
has a different level of disaster frequency and degree. On a case-by-case basis, Universities can decide the kindand level of disaster preparedness that is necessary on the basis of the type of natural disaster and experience.

It also hopes to foster a discussion of the need for campus preparedness capacity, create awareness forcampus safety, and review existing capacity and baseline data.

The questionnaire was developed in collaboration with IRIDeS (Tohoku University) and University ofCalifornia, Davis. The survey was distributed to 45 universities in 16 economies. 22 universities (49%) from
9 economies (Australia, China, Chinese Taipei, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, and USA)submitted responses. The survey comprised six topics that include governance actions, risk assessment,
disaster preparedness mechanism and capacity, response capacity, support system for students, faculty

members and staff, and data preservation. The last section, entitled “Others,” asked for qualitative informationand details regarding the current status of campus disaster preparedness.

The questions asked were rather simple and tried to understand very basic needs, not very technical andspecific capacities; therefore, this report does not evaluate their depth preparedness capacities. Also, thesurvey was designed to be answered by the staff or faculty who are not natural disaster and safety experts orengineers. The findings in this report are preliminary, and they discuss and develop further strategies for each
university. Further detailed surveys and in-depth analysis need to be conducted.

8

３ Survey Results
3.1

Governance Actions

Question 1: Has a Disaster Countermeasure Office, which is a temporary structure in case of emergencies, been
established? Does it involve university staff in senior positions (President, Vice President, etc)? Do the members of
the office coordinate the response efforts?
Figure 1 shows that the importance of establishing adisaster counter-measure office and its role during the

emergency stage is well-understood by the Universities.
The office plays a critical role in case of emergencies tocoordinate and oversee the response activities. All the
Universities are encouraged to prepare for setting upsuch a response mechanism to provide effective andefficient responses to natural disasters.

Figure 1: Disaster countermeasure office (DCO)
Question 2: Is a simulation exercise regularly conducted by the disaster countermeasure office to check thefunctioning of the office?
Twenty-eight percent of the Universities that alreadyhave a countermeasure office do not conduct thesimulation exercise to evaluate its functioning in caseof disasters (Figure 2). The office set-up and simulation

exercise should be conducted to ensure its functioning
flow and the role and responsibility of each member.

Figure 2: Simulation exercise for DCO

9

Question 3: Is a disaster response manual, which includes a contingency plan in case of natural disasters, ready?
Ninety-six percent of the Universities have alreadydeveloped or are currently developing a disaster

response plan (Figure 3). Such guidelines are alreadyprepared by most of the Universities.

Figure 3: Response manual
Question 4: In the event of a disaster, is information on the disaster or an early warning signal sent throughthe campus communication system to students, faculty members, and staff to alert them about the emergency
situation?
Figure 4 indicates that information on the emergencies

and early warning signals are not yet sufficiently
shared on campus (only 77% of the Universities havesignals in place). For effective evacuation, receipt ofan early warning is extremely important. In particular,

universities located in typhoon and tsunami risk areas
must equip such a system and facilities.

Figure 4: Early warning signal

10

3.2

Risk Assessment

Question 1: Has a risk assessment on campus been conducted to assess the likelihood and the impact of disasters?
Does it identify the issues to be improved when preparing for future disasters?
More than half of the Universities have not yet conducted

the risk assessment on campus and its disaster risks
may not be fully understood (Figure 5). Although 41%of the Universities are currently discussing this topic,

conducting a risk assessment is crucial to develop athorough disaster preparedness plan.

Figure 5: Risk assessment

What types and kinds of methodologies are used for the risk assessment? How often is it conducted and who
conducts it? How does the university utilize the assessment result?
◦

It is completed through the campus natural hazard mitigation plan, which follows the Federal Emergency

Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) guidance on risk assessments. It is conducted on a five-year review cycle.
The results of the assessment were used to identify and prioritize potential risk-reduction measures.
◦

In addition, the university began a comprehensive risk assessment modeled after the enterprise risk
management model and included a much broader scope than natural disasters (University of Oregon).

Investigation and rating of hazards on campus toward chemicals, high-pressure gases, radioactive

compounds, germs, and of dangerous configurations on campus, such as a collapse, a fall, a cave-in,are conducted. At least once in a year these are conducted by Department of Administration for Safety

and Hygiene (DASH). DASH utilizes this data to develop a fire-evacuation drill in each department, by◦◦

giving information and ideas, and a large-scale disaster-evacuation drill is conducted by DASH (Osaka
University)Safe areas on campus are based on the information regarding where chemicals are routinely stored.
(University of Tokyo)

Assessments are conducted using industry best practices and established Federal standards. Risks

are regularly reviewed and as warranted, corrective actions are implemented. The results support◦◦

implementation of emergency management initiatives and practices under development or alreadyestablished. (University of Hawaii at Manoa)

A Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (HVA) is conducted every five years unless events which couldchange the ranking occur. We also worked with the Santa Barbara County on the Hazard Mitigation plan.
(University of California, Santa Barbara)

A comprehensive hazard vulnerability analysis was performed in 2005 and is reviewed annually. Possible

hazards are evaluated with regard to their potential effects on persons, property, and mission/reputation.

This results in a numerical ranking for each hazard. On the basis of this ranking, plans are made toprevent the occurrence (if possible), react to, and mitigate the effects of and recover from each hazard.
(University of California, Los Angeles)

11

◦
◦

Waseda University conducts a campus facilities inspection biennially. It includes evaluations of seismic

performance and fall-prevention measures. (Waseda University)

A complete HVA was achieved for the University of California (UC), Irvine in 2008. Since that time, thetop ten hazards were identified for the campus and corresponding plans and mitigation measures have◦been implemented. The university periodically reviews this list and updates it as needed. (University ofCalifornia, Irvine)

The methodologies of the assessment are based on long-term observations and data in the region and

the Asia Pacific Rim area, related to earthquakes (measured 7.0 on the Richter scale once in 50 years),
tsunamis (waves 15 meters max in the Bay of Ajax) provided by the Primorsky Territory Office of theRussian Ministry for Emergency Situations (PT EMERCOM). The Far Eastern Federal University (FEFU),

Civil Defense, and Emergency Headquarters, conducts assessments on a regular basis. On the basis of thestatistics and guidelines by PT EMERCOM, the university utilizes the results of the assessment to develop◦

work and action plans, including strategies for preparation/mitigation against natural and technogenic
disasters. (Far Eastern Federal University)

A risk assessment has not been developed for the prevention of natural disasters. Aiming at thepossibility of disasters and accidents in large-scale activities, the Security Department will urge the hostof the activity to assess the possibility of risk. Then, the Security Department will examine the assessment
result and complement with supplementary opinions. (Peking University)

Question 2: On the basis of the result, does the university discuss strategies for preparation/mitigation, and has it
developed a work and action plan?
Making the best use of the assessment results anddeveloping a preparedness plan is one of the mostchallenging, yet critical issues in disaster risk reduction
on campus. It requires time, expertise, and human andfinancial resources to develop a strategy and plan. Thus,

50% of the Universities are still discussing this matter and
14% have not yet initiated its development (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Preparedness plan based on assessment

12Question 3: Are the results of the assessments publically shared to inform students, faculty members, and staff ofthe risks?
Figure 7 shows that only 27% of the Universities

that have conducted the assessment have shared

the assessment results. The information was mostly
shared on-line through their website, as well as atvarious training sessions and exercises. However, some

Universities consider that providing the complete
details of the risk assessment is sensitive and should be

restricted for safety and security issues. Therefore, 37%
Figure 7: Assessment result shared

3.3

of the Universities may not be that active and positive to
opening such information and results.

Disaster Preparedness Mechanism and Capacity

Question 1: Has a system been set up to confirm the safety of students, faculty members, and staff after a disaster?
Should the students, faculty members, and staff that have received the message be required to report on theirsafety through the system?
Figure 8 implies that the need and necessity of such

safety confirmation system may not be completely
understood and the priority for such a system may belower than the other issues. Alternatively, setting upsuch system may require additional technology andfunding. The Universities that already have a system inplace can share the mechanism with others. Completingthe system is time consuming; however, confirming the
Figure 8: Safety confirmation

safety of the students, faculty, and staff would be crucial
for the Universities.

13Question 2: Has a disaster response handbook been developed and distributed to students, faculty members, andstaff? Should the handbook include information, such as “how to respond and react in case of natural disasters?”and “how to confirm their safety through the system?”
The handbook can be very useful for the students,
faculty members, and staff to develop and increaseknowledge of disasters and disaster preparedness.

Less than half of the Universities have developed anddistributed such a handbook; however, the other half

have not (Figure 9). Also, such a tool can be shared
among the Universities. Moreover, they can develop one

on the basis of the existing material. APRU may be able
to help with the process of sharing such materials.
Figure 9: Disaster response handbook for students/staff

Question 3: Does the infrastructure on campus have structural characteristics that are resistant to natural
disasters, such as earthquakes and cyclones?
Special attention is paid toward disaster-resistant.
Nearly all the Universities have arranged for special
infrastructure (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Disaster resistant structure14

Question 4: Are awareness-raising activities for disasters conducted regularly, including drills and guidance?
Figure 11 indicates that nearly 70% of the Universities
have been conducting the awareness-raising activities

and 20% are now discussing how to initiate them.
The activities include tabletop exercises, drills, andworkshops. In some Universities, a disaster responsemanual is provided online through an e-leaning system.

Figure 11: Awareness raising

Question 5: In the event of a disaster and as preparation for such, is special guidance provided for foreign
students?
Foreign students should have such information andguidance as they likely do not have knowledge of local

hazards and the systems in place. Thus, Universities
need to pay extra attention to them. Less than half of the

Universities have been ready to share the informationand guidance with foreign students (Figure 12). Twenty-

seven percent are now discussing this issue; however,the Universities should consider providing their foreign
Figure 12: Guidance for foreign students

students with the information immediately.

Question 6: Has an emergency communication system, such as an independent, hardened computer server thatenables the university to maintain communications capabilities and systems operations, even under emergencies,
been established within the campus?
After a great disaster, the communication system isoften damaged. Such damage impacts how alerts aresent. Such alerts include sharing the scale and level ofdamage and how they need to respond (e.g., evacuate orstay). To protect the lives of students, faculty, and staff,

this system is extremely important for Universities.
Nearly half of the Universities are equipped and 23%of the Universities are discussing this issue (Figure 13).
Most of the Universities understand the importance.
Figure 13: Emergency communication system

15

3.4 Response Capacity
Question 1: Does the campus have a stockpile of food, water, blankets, etc. that can be used in emergencies?
Figure 14 shows that more than half of the Universities
have a stockpile of emergency response items.

It is important for the Universities to respond to

emergencies with minimum emergency items until
sufficient relief items are delivered by third parties. The
frequency and level of recent disasters are increasing
and strengthening the response capacity is highly
important for the Universities.
Figure 14: Stockpile of emergency items

Question 2: In the event the university experiences a disaster and needs emergency assistance, is there anagreement with neighboring universities or other groups/organizations regarding possible mutual assistance?
Having an agreement regarding mutual assistancewith neighboring universities may be a new idea andan initiative for the Universities. Therefore, only 36%of the Universities have such arrangement and 27%of the Universities have this issue under discussion(Figure 15). Providing effective assistance in a timely

manner is very important, as was learned after theGreat East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in 2011. The
Figure 15: Agreement with other universities
for mutual support

Universities are highly recommended to include thisarrangement in their preparedness plan.

Question 3: Does the university have building inspection capability and a team in place to conduct an assessmentof buildings immediately after a disaster?
As Universities have such expertise when conducting

inspections, most Universities are effectively utilizing

the capacity for an assessment after a disaster (Figure
16).

Figure 16: Building inspection capacity
16

Question 4: Does the university have a list of registered student volunteers who are willing to participate in
response activities after a disaster? Do these volunteers know that they may be dispatched to communities,
evacuation centers, and local governments that require assistance?
This is also a new idea of response preparedness thatmaximizes the capacity of students as volunteers

and provides assistance to communities and local

governments. This is one of the methods throughwhich Universities can contribute to communities.

Eighteen percent of the members have already had
this system, which is considered advanced (Figure17). UC, Santa Barbara, Far Eastern Federal University,
Peking University, and Zhejiang University have alreadyFigure 17: List of volunteers

3.5

established such a list.

Support System for Students, Faculty Members, and Staff

Question 1: Have policies for a support system for students, such as exemption from tuition fees or a special grant,
been developed in case the students are affected and have difficulties studying at the University?
Figure 18 indicates that more than half of the
Universities already have policies regarding a support
system for affected students. Twenty-nine percent of

the Universities are currently discussing this issue. This
will be a critical issue for students and it is extremely

important for universities to have a clear policy onwhat type of administrative assistance is provided to
students in the event of emergencies. Otherwise, aftera disaster, tremendous confusion may be experienced
Figure 18: Support policy for students

among students, faculty, and staff.

17

Question 2: Have policies regarding a support system for faculty members, staff, and their families, who havebeen affected by a disaster, been developed?
The percentage of Universities that have a support

system in place for faculty members, staff, and theirfamilies is slightly lower than those who have support

policies in place for students (Figure 19). Undoubtedly,

universities have a high priority for its students;

however, support for the faculty and staff is also

important. This support system has to be considered
and the policy for faculty and staff should be developed.
Figure 19: Support policy for staff/faculty

Question 3: Has a support system been developed for students, faculty members, and staff who need psychosocial
care after a disaster on campus?
More than 70% of the Universities have a support

system for psychosocial care and nearly 20% havethis issue under discussion (Figure 20). The need forpsychosocial support is well acknowledged.

Figure 20: Psychosocial support

Question 4: In the event of a disaster, has a support system been developed for foreign students, including
administrative and legal procedures, such as extension of period of stay or reentrance procedures?
Although nearly half of the Universities have asystem to provide administrative support to foreign

students, the other half do not (Figure 21). Universities
should consider that the number of foreign students
is increasing, and those students likely have lessknowledge of the country’s disaster situation. Returning
to the country/university smoothly is also important
for them. Such support is critical and all the Universities
need to prepare for it.
Figure 21: Support policy to foreign students
18

3.6

Data Preservation

Question 1: Are interviews and data collection conducted by students/faculty members immediately after adisaster to preserve the records of response and recovery activities? (This can be valuable data to study, assess,and evaluate for future disasters and responses. The methods in which these interviews and data are collectedshould be identified and determined. Specifically, Universities should identify who is responsible and list themethodologies to be used, including, but not limited to, interviews, questionnaires, and other types of information
gathering.)
There is an expectation for universities to play arole in collecting data and conducting interviews torecord the experiences of disasters. Some opine that
local governments should undertake responsibility

for such activities; however, the local governmentsfrom the affected areas often do not have sufficienthuman resources and capacity in an emergency stage.

Therefore, universities should provide support andFigure 22: Record preservation

undertake the responsibility of recording the situation.
This accumulated data will assist with future researchand study at a later stage. Forty percent of participation

is a good percentage at this moment, and an additional 35% of the Universities are working towards thatgoal in the event of a disaster (Figure 22). It can be also a new role for universities after a disaster and willcontribute to future researchers.

Question 2: Is there an archival system that can preserve the collected data and information? Does the University
share this with those outside the University?
After the abundant data is collected, preservation ofthis data is a critical issue. At the moment, only 20% of
the Universities have set up a system (Figure 23). This
will be a future task of Universities. Forty-five percentof the Universities have not yet initiated the discussion.
Notably, only 20% of the Universities have installed thesystem. Specifically, the Australian National University,

the University of Oregon, the National University of
Figure 23: Archiving system

Singapore, the Peking University, and the Tohoku
University have set up such an archiving system.

19

3.7 Others
3.7.1

What are the Major Challenges to Develop the Mechanisms, Systems, and Activities ofDisaster Preparedness on Campus?

◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦

Multi-hazards and complexity of disasters

Collaboration between different departments
Lack of safety awarenessJoint disaster drills distributed over multiple campuses

Securing the budget for DRR measures, including infrastructure

Stable funding for the program, executive support, and lack of interest by the general campus population

for preparing for infrequent catastrophic events

Buy-in: Getting departments and individuals to invest time to evaluate emergency preparedness
Awareness raising and active participation among all participants

Engagement of faculty and student bodies. Embedding consistent knowledge across the entire university

community

Prioritization of what are considered critical activities from an institutional perspective and allocation of

appropriate resources towards disaster preparedness

Time available for emergency preparedness, training, and systems because of heavy workloads andschedules

Resources, funding, and staffing.
3.7.2

What are the Activities that Your University Has Prioritized; however, They Have Not Yet
been Materialized, in Terms of Disaster Preparedness on Campus?

◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦

Emergency alert system

Establishing a cooperative network among staff in a safety office and professors who are experts in DRR
Campus-wide simultaneous evacuation drills
Developing a recovery plan

Systems to confirm safety of students and staff

Improvement of strategic plan, current system, and emergency plan

Crisis management team training, understanding of university resilience management framework,

enhanced emergency communications

Preparedness and management of thick haze

Development and implementation of campus medical and mental health response teams, development

and implementation of a recovery plan, creating additional disaster supply stockpiles

Use the expertise and capacity of each department—geophysics, engineering, and psychology—indisaster forecasting, response, and mitigation
3.7.3

What Type of Assistance Would Your University Like to Have From Other APRU Institutionsin Terms of Disaster Preparedness or Response on Campus?

◦
◦
◦
◦
◦

20

Sharing tools for assessment, manuals of different disasters, training materials, and good practices of

DRR

Sharing good practices, cases, and lessons learned regarding disaster preparedness and response
Information sharing on DRR measures by Universities
Sharing the earthquake recovery plan

Coordination and facilitation of sharing, exchanging experiences, and knowledge. Organizing trainings

◦◦and workshops on campus safety for capacity development

Listing of prioritized critical activities for which emergency response and recovery have to be developed

for the purpose of disaster preparedness

How to respond to local residents’ evacuation
3.7.4

Any New Ideas for Disaster Preparedness Activities That You Think Universities Should
Have and Need to Adopt (That Have Not Been Included in This Form).

◦
◦
◦
◦
◦

◦

Developing risk assessment reports for different disasters on the basis of the prepared manual andcountermeasures

Developing a business continuity plan and natural disaster management plan

Instituting decision-making drills, in addition to regular evacuation and simulation exercises

Developing internal self-support and self-rescue systems, while seeking the most effective assistancefrom governments, institutions, and groups

Developing a whole community approach, where all university community members actively participate

in safeguarding themselves, their departments, and their campus, similar to the concept of “it takes avillage to raise a child,” all stakeholders must actively participate to benefit

Participating in Community Emergency Response Team programs for their campus

21

４ Summary and Implications
4.1 Key Findings
Governance Action: As shown in Figure 24, many Universities have good capacity in the areas of GovernanceActions. A countermeasure office (response coordination office) and a response plan have been welldeveloped among the Universities. However, further efforts are required in regularizing simulation exercises
and setting up information sharing and early warning systems.

Figure 24: Summary of responses for Governance Actions

Risk Assessment: Figure 25 implies that risk assessment will be the area that the Universities need tocarefully consider and many Universities need further development in this area. Even if initiated, the results
have not been fully utilized for developing a natural disaster preparedness strategy or plan. Perhaps it istargeting other disasters, chemical hazards, etc. Universities in the U.S., such as the University of Oregon, theUniversity of Hawaii, the University of California, Santa Barbara, the University of California, Los Angeles, aswell as the University of California, Irvine, seem to have strong experience in risk assessment. They have plansin place to prevent the occurrence, react to it, and mitigate the effects, and recover from each hazard.

Figure 25: Summary of responses for Risk Assessment
Disaster Preparedness: Mechanism and capacity in terms of disaster preparedness, the areas of natural
disaster resistant structures, emergency communication systems, and awareness raising activities were
further developed as shown in Figure 26. Especially, the attention given to the disaster-resistant structures22and awareness-raising activities were very strong. The following awareness activities have been initiated:•

Disaster response exercises for incident command staff•

Annual preparedness fairs, quarterly tests of the emergency notification systems

•
•
•
•
•

Workshops on lab-safety
Evacuation drills

Public outreach—community preparedness workshops on campus
Online fire-safety awareness programs
Disaster response manuals

However, Universities need to perform further tasks on safety confirmation, developing preparedness
handbooks and their distribution, and special guidance for foreign students.

Figure 26: Summary of responses for Disaster Preparedness Mechanism/Capacity

23

Response Capacity: The basic response preparedness immediately after a disaster has been already put inplace, including a stockpile of emergency items and the capacity and implementation of building inspections(Figure 27). Expanding the provision of their support and reaching out to communities is a new area and it
is possible by developing a mutual agreement with neighboring universities and dispatch volunteers to local
governments and communities.

Figure 27: Summary of responses for Response Capacity
Support System for Students, Faculty Members, and Staff: Nearly half of the Universities have a policy

in place to support foreign students in emergencies (Figure28); however, the Universities need to further
emphasize this topic. The Universities must prepare, from an administrative perspective, to assist students,
specifically from overseas so that they can smoothly resume their studies. Without such a policy, the situation
will be confused and it will take time for students to return to the Universities. The importance of providing

psychosocial support to students, faculty members, and staff is well managed and more than 70% of the
Universities have already had a support system for this purpose.

Figure 28: Summary of responses for Support System for Students, Faculty Members, Staff

24

Data Preservation: At least, in case a large scale disaster occurs, Universities should look into the needfor collecting information and record the response activities and the damage situation which will provide
a research resource. Figure 29 shows that half the Universities have such initiatives in place; however,systematic preservation so that the data can be utilized by third parties is a challenge. Some of the Universities
have already installed the system and could be shared among the Universities that are interested in developing
the system.

Figure 29: Summary of responses for Data preservation
Table 1: Strengths and potential in six areas of disaster management
Area
1

Governance actions

2

Risk assessment

3

Disaster
preparedness
mechanism andcapacityStrengths*◦◦

Potential**

Countermeasure office
Response plan

◦

None

◦ Risk assessment◦ Strategies and action plan basedon risk assessment◦ Assessment result to be shared◦

Simulation exercise ofcountermeasure office◦ Information sharing and early
warning

E m e r g e n c y c o m m u n i c a t i o n ◦ Guidance for foreign students
system◦ Safety confirmation
Disaster-resistant
structure◦◦ Response handbook and its
distribution◦ Awareness-raising activities

4

Response capacity◦◦5

Support system forstudents, faculty
members, and staff◦◦

Policies for support to students
Support for psychosocial
assistance needs

6

Date preservation◦

Data and information gathering ◦ Archival system for preservationof records and information
after disasters

Emergency stockpile
Building inspection
implementation and capacity◦

Mutual agreement withneighboring universities◦ Volunteers list◦

Support system for foreign
students◦ Support system for faculty
members, and staff, as well as
their families

Strength*: More than 50% of the Universities answered, “already existed”

Potential**: Less than 50% answered, “discussion is on-going” or “not yet started”
As shown in Table 1, out of the six areas, the area of risk assessment requires more attention and effort. On
the basis of the risk assessment, knowing and learning the risks and developing counter-measures to mitigate
25

these risks is possible. If Universities have already conducted risk assessment and had experience, especially
the Universities located in disaster prone areas, the results are maximized to develop its preparedness

capacity. Most importantly, it is not sufficient in that it does not include the aspects of risk management andpreparedness based on risk assessment. Attention should be given to the pre-disaster phase and mitigation of
the risks, as well as the effective response.

In addition, early warning and alert systems have not been installed widely. An early warning system is

extremely crucial to implement an instant response action, such as evacuation. Moreover, the further support

and consideration for foreign students is required. Universities have important responsibilities to provide
sufficient knowledge and support before and after disasters for foreign students who have language barriers
and less knowledge of local hazards.

However, many Universities already have a mechanism in place to establish a counter-measure office andhave developed a response manual and plan. In addition, physical structure areas, such as disaster-resistant

structures, emergency communication, and emergency stockpiles, have been progressed compared to otherareas. Furthermore, the support toward psychosocial aspects has been provided after disasters, and many
Universities have policies to provide such support.

4.2 Challenges

Many Universities have encountered financial constraints when developing preparedness capacity on campus,

human resources challenges, difficulties understanding risks and safety issues, and encountering a lack ofparticipation by faculty and staff. These are common challenges to many Universities. To improve the situationand current capacity, it is important to raise awareness among the faculty and staff for the need for capacity
development and for financial and human resources support.

4.3 Potential

Many Universities requested the support from other Universities by sharing tools and good practices. The

MH program will research how the Program can provide support to the Universities to strengthen the
preparedness capacity on campus (e.g., sharing the materials or planning a workshop on campus safety).

On the basis of this report, there was a suggestion and request from some Universities to promote thisconcept to the senior management at their Universities to convince them to develop and/or enhance thecampus safety concept. Consideration should be given to forming a working group on campus safety anddiscussing the next step of this project.

26

５ Afterword
Although this survey pertained to natural disasters, other areas and factors, such as a pandemic, were taken

into consideration in some responses to the questionnaires. The term “disaster” was understood not only tonatural disasters but also man-made disasters. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that this survey was entirely

focused on natural hazards. Some questions were answered on the basis of their capacity for different types ofdisasters. Even if a disaster includes various disaster types, the most important thing is for the Universities to
pay attention to crisis/disaster management and understand the need for the preparation of these disasters.

In this sense, either natural or man-made, the Universities ready for disaster preparedness can easily expand
the coverage for natural disasters if necessary.

In addition, the departments and offices that answered the questionnaires were selected by each

University. Some Universities have a safety management office that is specified for managing safety issues

on campus and have strong knowledge on disaster preparedness. However, some questionnaires wereanswered by general affairs offices representing the University. In this case, their disaster-related knowledge
and their countermeasures may be limited. It is possible that their disaster preparedness capacity was notproperly observed and therefore inaccurately reflected in this report. In the interests of accuracy and detailed
understanding of the progress of preparedness level, future surveys should be answered by disaster experts
or faculty members.

27

APPENDIX

Appendix I: Activities that has ever been taken for disaster preparedness, response and recovery by
the APRU member universities
The earthquake drill has been performed in any buildings in the campus. The AED are installed in many

places in the campus and the training of using AED is ongoing. A center is in charge of preparing themanual of disaster prevention and a committee is established for the disaster but the assessment is not

yet performed. (National Taiwan University)

Disaster preparedness: distribute brochures; organize compulsory classes

Response: launch the alarm system; extensively disseminate information on counter-measures ofdisasters; set up steering committee and working teams

Recovery: collect data on disaster loss and provide relief supplies (Zhejiang University)

Introduction of Early Earthquake Warning System, Disaster Drills, and Compilation of records/datafrom the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami ( http://www.tohoku.ac.jp/japanese/disaster/earthquake/01/earthquake0101/)(Japanese only) (Tohoku University)

Following any type of incident, we conduct an after action report to identify what went well and what

could be improved upon. The areas for improvement are identified as action items to work on before
the next incident. In addition, from an earthquake risk standpoint, the university is using its capitalconstruction program and funding to work on retrofitting the older buildings on campus that have higherearthquake risks. (University of Oregon)

Installation of emergency equipment in selected rooms and buildings such as emergency telephonelines, LAN, TV, emergency power supply, generators, and preparation of a two-ton crane truck tobring emergency generators to headquarter and to carry a one-ton water tank from water service
point conducted by city office, preparation of foods and cooking gears for evacuees (8000) in campus.

Simulation exercise of large scale evacuation using virtual reality software (on-going) (Osaka University)

The departments of the university have the personnel on duty to report an incident to Office of the

President or to the police. After reception, Office of the President will launch the emergency responseplan as appropriate, and each department will response according to the plan. (Peking University)

Secured means of maintaining communication within the university. Each department assigned a second
evacuation site to which they relocate to once everyone has assembled at the first assembly area.

Guidelines for initial action following a large earthquake. An Earthquake Early Warning System for within
the University has been set up. Have begun to establish a group for provisional quick inspections ofdamaged buildings after an earthquake.

Set up assembly procedures for faculty and staff of the central administration office.

Guidelines made for stocking emergency provisions for each department. (University of Tokyo)

The University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, is a key and active partner and contributor with the development of
the State of Hawai‘i Hazard Mitigation Plan, as well as with our 4 counties.

The University has many key staff and departments actively involved in the development of training,education, and research in the fields of Disaster Resilience, Emergency Management, and BusinessContinuity. While there are many examples and activities which we’ve participated in, a few of the most28

notable initiatives include:






Establishment of the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Office of Emergency Management and thereorganization into the Campus Security and Emergency Management Department.

Development of System and Campus Emergency Management and Response Plans.

Establishment of a liaison representative from the University with Federal, State, County, and NGO
Emergency management and recovery agencies.

Partnerships and funding with the US Geological Service for monitoring of stream water conditions
and levels.

 Active participation with Federal, State, and County agencies notably the US Army Corps of Engineers,
and the State Department of Land and Natural Resources addressing the Mānoa Watershed

Mitigation Plan.

Corrective actions post incident from the 2004 flash flood, with flood mitigation measures
implemented, such as: Structural corrections and enhancements to various campus buildings

affected, notably the Hamilton Library, and Strategic Planning with development and construction ofthe UH Information Technology Center.

Establishment of the: National Disaster Preparedness Training Center (www.ndptc.hawaii.
edu), Pacific EMPRINTS (http://www.emprints.hawaii.edu/), Greater collaboration with various

departments on emergency preparedness, including the School of Nursing and Dental Hygiene
and their disaster response mass casualty training and simulation drills. (University of Hawai‘i at
Mānoa)The Office of Typhoon & Floods Control was established in Fudan University to react to the related
disaster. (Fudan University)

 Incidents that require activation of the emergency crisis team have recorded notes of actions and recovery

activities. External training providers assist with activity plans and skill development across a wide range

of Faculty and Service Divisions. (University of Auckland)

The UCSB Emergency and Continuity Planning Program enjoys strong campus leadership support. UCSB
works with emergency managers and first responder agencies in the Santa Barbara County Operational

Area on activities including a county-wide multi-agency functional earthquake exercise, public education,
CERT, implementing WebEOC for all County agencies, and developing a Public Information Officer
network. UCSB is also partnering with the Isla Vista community to provide members of the UCSB andIsla Vista communities with disaster awareness and emergency preparedness training and response
resources.

On campus partnerships are being strengthened though earthquake workshops with Facilities
Management and Student Affairs. Campus evacuation planning brought UCPD, Parking & Transportation

Services, EH&S, Housing, as well as outside partners to formalize the campus evacuation plan. Campus
Design & Construction recertified staff though CAL OES in the Safety Assessment Program, and UCSB
updated its earthquake damage assessment plan. Exercises were conducted with the EOC team for

scenarios dealing with an active shooter and campus protests. Campus exercises with community

partners included a Medical Shelter exercise with Santa Barbara County Public Health and a Santa
Barbara Airport Family Assistance Center exercise. UCSB completed the installation of outdoor warning

speakers across campus as part of its mass notification system. With a matching ‘Aware & Prepare

Initiative’ grant, UCSB purchased a 500-gallon fuel trailer to support the campus emergency generator
program. (University of California, Santa Barbara)29

At UNSW, we have developed strategies to manage emergencies and these have been subject to simulation

exercises in collaboration with government emergency response agencies such as Fire Brigade, Policeand Ambulance Services. (University of New South Wales)

After a major fire incident, the university has a team to conduct the post-incident investigation. This teamwill collect data and information through the electronic access control system, CCTV, report and activationlog, interviews of various personnel involved, and others. The results, findings and recommendations arerecorded in the investigation report. (National University of Singapore) Periodical revision of a disaster response manual, Continuous review of the list of stockpiles for disaster

prevention, biennial evaluation of a seismic performance, and so on. (Waseda University)

In addition to our campus Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), conducting training and exercises with
our Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and Department Operations Centers (DOCs), UC Irvine has

also implemented a building evacuation program (Zone Crew) as well as a campus CERT program(Campus Search and Rescue - CSAR) to train various staff and faculty across the campus on emergency

preparedness and response measures. Additionally, a number of other training programs are offeredthroughout the year to provide students, staff, and faculty with campus emergency management
information as well as personal preparedness information. (University of California Irvine)

Appendix II: The existing disaster preparedness related documents/materials such as a disaster response/
preparedness plan, the result of risk assessment on campus, a disaster response/preparedness handbook/macula for staff, students and faculty members or any kind of disaster response/preparedness guideline.


A disaster response/preparedness plan; and disaster response/preparedness handbooks/manuals forstaff, students and faculty members against floods, tsunamis, earthquakes and fire. (Far Eastern Federal
University)






Manual of Campus Safety. (In Chinese) (National Taiwan University)

Zhejiang University Contingency Plan of Preparedness and Response to Meteorological Disasters;
Preparedness Plan on Public Emergencies (Zhejiang University)

Earthquake Response Manual” (For students and faculty/staff members. Available in English andJapanese), Fire safety plans created by each of Keio’s campuses. (Keio University)

Great East Japan Earthquake Record Compilation, Disaster Management Manual, Pocket Manual (Tohoku
University)



Emergency Procedures Flipchart - http://emc.uoregon.edu/node/50

Emergency Kit Calendar - http://emc.uoregon.edu/sites/emc.uoregon.edu/files/uploads/Supply%20



Calendar%20Brochure.pdf“ (University of Oregon)

General guideline for natural disasters, ”Preparing for disasters” (in English/Japanese), Manual for
emergency state (in Japanese), Manual of immediate response in case of earthquake (in English/

Japanese), Reporting form for any kinds of accidents (in Japanese), Template of fire and disaster

prevention guideline for departments (in Japanese) (Osaka University)

The University of Tokyo Disaster Prevention Measures (temporary name),2013 Manual for Disaster

Prevention (temporary name), Guidelines for initial action following an earthquake measuring greaterthan ""5-lower"" on the Japanese seismic scale, Guideline for stocking emergency provisions. (Universityof Tokyo)30

University of Hawai‘i National Disaster Preparedness Training Center (NDPTC)FEMA recognized training manuals (https://ndptc.hawaii.edu/training/documents)

University of Hawai‘i System Hazard Mitigation Plan (http://www.hawaii.edu/emergency/
mitigationplan/docs/UH_Multi-Hazard_Mitigation_Plan.pdf)

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Pandemic Preparedness Response Plan (http://www.uhm.hawaii.edu/
emergency/management/UHMPRPAppendixA1A3.doc)

SEA GRANT - Homeowners Handbook to Prepare for Natural Hazards (http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/

sites/seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/files/publications/homeowners_handbook_to_prepare_for_natural_
hazards.pdf) (University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa) Resilience Management Plan, Crisis Management Plan, Business Continuity Plan in progress (Universityof Auckland)Comprehensive emergency operations plan (EOP) which includes hazard specific annexes for the 10
most likely hazards to be encountered at UCLA. Emergency Action Plan and Departmental Emergency
Response Plan templates for use by subordinate organizations. Disaster Initial Response Team planand exercises for those personnel needed to immediately assess damage and respond after a disaster.

Detailed checklists for the Emergency Management Policy Group (senior management) and CampusEmergency Operations Group. (University of California, Los Angeles)

Emergency Response Plan, Critical Incident Response Strategic Framework,

Business Impact Analyses and Business Recovery Plans. (University of New South Wales)

Pandemic preparedness and management plan, Fire safety preparedness system and programmes, fireevacuation plans, Management of staff and student with mental health illness, threat of violence, harm

to self and others, suicide threat, Management of serious injury and death, Guidelines and training forstudent leaders in organizing high risk activities and overseas events, Guidelines on factors of safety

considerations on organizing activities and events, and Guidelines and advice on overseas trip. (National
University of Singapore)Emergency Operations Plan, Emergency Operations Center Standard Operating Procedure

UCI Emergency Procedures Flip Chart, Guide to Emergency Communications Across Campus

Crisis Management Guide for the Chancellor's Executive Policy Group, Department Operations Center(DOC) Plans, Pandemic Influenza Annex, Damage Assessment Annex, Care and Shelter Annex (Universityof California Irvine)

The Emergency Contingency Plans of Peking University; Safety Knowledge for College Students ( which
introduces the fire safety, traffic safety, personal security, financial security, network security, natural
disasters and disaster reduction, social practice and travel safety, etc. and it is pressed by China Machine

Press ), College Students' Safety Knowledge Manual (issued by the Education Working Committee ofBeijing Municipality and revised by the Security Department of Peking University), Security Service Guide (which includes the personal and property safety, fire and natural disasters protection, suitable for first-

year students to understand the basic safety common sense), Students’ Safety Knowledge Handbook On

Fire control and ABC Traffic Safety and Untie the Regiment Hemp (the form of a comic on traffic safetyknowledge)(Peking University)

31Appendix III: Higher-ranking Universities (10) in disaster preparedness capacity

The points were calculated on the basis of their answers – “Already exists/implemented” (3 points), “Discussion is
on-going” (2 points), and “Not yet started” (1 point).

Figure 30: Disaster preparedness capacity by the University32