International Environment and Disaster Management
Laboratory
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies
KYOTO UNIVERSITY
Yoshida Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, JAPANTel/ Fax: 81-75-753-5708
Web: http://www.iedm.ges.kyoto-u.ac.jp/

UNESCO Bangkok
Education for Sustainable Development
920 Sukhumvit Rd, Prakanong, Klongtoey
Bangkok 10110, Thailand
http://www.unesco.org/bangkok

E-HFA1

E-HFA2

E-HFA3

E-HFA4

Task1〜4

Key Lessons for the Education Sector

Tel. +6623910577 ext 221. Fax. +6623910866

E-HFA

E-HFA1：

East Japan Earthquake
and Tsunami

E-HFA5

Tasks

Structure,
Location,
Layout

Key Lessons and Issues
New Role of
Function and
Human
Effectiveness
School and
Educational Resourcesof Disaster
Multi- stakeholder
Continuity and Training Education
Dialogue

Tasks1
Tasks2
Tasks3
Tasks4
Tasks5
Tasks6
Tasks7
Tasks8
Tasks9Tasks10
Tasks11
Tasks12
Tasks13
Tasks14
Tasks15
Tasks16
Low Performance, Need improvements
Moderate PerformanceHigh Performance

an

of
an

of Schoolsof Schools

A
F
H
E

Disclaimer:
The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO Bangkok concerning thelegal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or the delimitation of its
frontiers or boundaries.
The authors are responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in thisbook and for the opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO
Bangkok and do not commit the Organization.

Authors:
Rajib Shaw
Yukiko Takeuchi
Kyoto University, Japan

Contacts:
Rajib Shaw
Associate Professor
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies
KYOTO UNIVERSITY
Yoshida Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, JAPANTel/ Fax: 81-75-753-5708
Web: http://www.iedm.ges.kyoto-u.ac.jp/
E-mail: shaw.rajib.5u@kyoto-u.ac.jp

East Japan Earthquake
and Tsunami
Key Lessons in the Education Sector

Contents
1. Overview of East Japan Earthquake andTsunami ...p3
2. Role of Schools in Japan as Evacuation
Centers...p6
3. Selected Cases of Impacts on Schools in the
Tohoku Area...p8
4. Priority of Community and School Facilities as
Evacuation Centers...p16
5. Key Lessons Learned from the Disaster and its
Aftermath...p18

ii

Overview ofEast Japan Earthquake
and Tsunami
A massive earthquake of magnitude
9.0 occurred on Friday 11 March,
off the Pacific coast of northeasternJapan (Tohoku Region). More than
15,000 people were killed and thenumber of the missing persons ismore than 3,500 (NPA, 2011). Table
1 and 2 are the overview of theearthquake and tsunami provided
by JMA (2011).

Date and Time
Magnitude
Hypocenter
JMA Seismic Intensity(refer to Figure 1)

1

The earthquake was the fourthmega earthquake known to date;the other three were the Chile
earthquake in 1960, the Alaska
earthquake in 1964 and Sumatra
earthquake in 2004. The firsttsunami reached the Japanese
mainland 20 minutes after theearthquake and ultimately affected
a 2000 km stretch of Japan’s Pacific

11 March 2011 14:46 JST (05:46 UTC)
9.0 (interim value; the largest earthquake recorded in Japan)
N38.1, E142.9 (130km ESE off Ojika Peninsula) Depth 24km (interim
value)
7 (Max): Kurihara City of Miyagi Prefecture
6+: 28 cities and towns (including Wakuya Town, Tome City, Osaki City,
Natori City) in Miyagi, Fukushima, Ibaraki, and Tochigi Prefectures6- or weaker: Observed nationwide from Hokkaido to Kyushu
Table 1 Earthquake Details
Number of Areas (Total: 66 areas)

Date and Time

ActionWarning(3m or higher)

Warning(Up to 2m)

Advisory(About 0.5m)

11 March 2011 14:49 JST (05:49 UTC)

Issued3

5

15

11 March 2011 15:14 JST (06:14 UTC)

Increased
Increased
Increased
Increased
Increased
Increased
Increased
Decreased
Decreased
Decreased
Lifted

6
10
17
17
17
18
18
4
0
0
0

7
24
19
19
22
21
21
11
4
0
0

23
11
17
18
19
19
27
26
21
15
0

11 March 2011 15:33 JST (06:33 UTC)
11 March 2011 16:08 JST (07:08 UTC)
11 March 2011 18:47 JST (09:47 UTC)
11 March 2011 21:35 JST (12:35 UTC)
11 March 2011 22:53 JST (13:53 UTC)
12 March 2011 03:20 JST (18:20 UTC)
12 March 2011 13:50 JST (04:50 UTC)
12 March 2011 20:20 JST (11:20 UTC)
13 March 2011 07:30 JST (22:30 UTC)
13 March 2011 17:58 JST (08:58 UTC)

Table 2. Tsunami warning and advisories [Source: JMA 2011]

Overview of East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami

iii

coast (Shaw and Takeuchi 2012).

200,000 people, many of whom still
remain in temporary housing.

This disaster caused widespread
human suffering and catastrophic
damage to housing andinfrastructure (Table 3). According
to the National Police Agency, thedeath total is estimated at 15,840
people (2011/12/9). The maincause of death was drowning, withpeople more than 60 years old
accounting for 65% of the dead. The
number of deaths was about threetimes of that of the Great Hanshin
Awaji Earthquake. 120,241 houses
were completely destroyed and189.822 houses partially collapsed
as of 17 November 2011. The peak
number of evacuees reached toPrefecture

Hokkaido
Aomori
Iwate
Miyagi
Akita
Yamagata
Fukushima
Tokyo
Ibaragi
Tochigi
Gunma
Saitama
Chiba
Kanagawa

The tsunami hit the prefecturesof Iwate and Miyagi at different
times, with the closest occurring
approximately 22 to 25 minutes
from the time of the earthquake,and the farthest occurring
approximately one hour after
the earthquake. On an average,
there was 30-40 minutes time lag
between the earthquake and thearrival of the tsunami (illustrated in
Figure 1).
In the East Japan Earthquake andTsunami, the education sector
experienced massive damage,

Population

HousesDead

Missing

Total
collapsed

Halfcollapsed

1
3
4665
9503

1
1420
1994

310
20184
77034

4
851
4551
93568

222

37
18373

2
1605
7
24
4
1
20
4

1

3225
264

2

783

80
56864
11
23005
2029
7
5
9205
38

Inundation
above ﬂoor
level
329

Inundation
under ﬂoor
level
545

1761
7053

323
11009

62

339

1609

726

153

720

Table 3. Damage situation as of 2011/11/21(Source: National Police Agency)

iv

Overview of East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami

along with other sectors such as
housing, infrastructure, energy andcivil society. In total, 6,284 publicschools received damage and 733
school students/teachers died or
missing as a result of the 2011
Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami(MEXT, 2011). MEXT classified thedamage each school suffered into
three levels. Figure 4 shows thebreakdown of school number ofdamage levels 1-3. 193 schools
belong to damage level 1, indicating
total destruction rendering thecontinued use of the school
impossible. Level 2 signified heavy
damage, necessitating structural
repairs. Level 3 signified minor
damage, mostly non-structural.

Many schools and learners andeducators within them wereaffected by the disaster. One of
the key reasons for this was theproximity of the schools to thecoastlines. The Okawa elementary
School of Ishinomaki city is one of
the few schools, where the students
and teachers died in the schoolbuilding itself since they did notevacuate to higher places. However,
not all the coastal schools sufferedfrom loss of the lives of school
children, which has been attributed
to other factors such as size andstructure of school, links with thecommunity, disaster risk reduction
education etc.

Figure 1. Tsunami hitting the Iwate [above] and Miyagi [below] prefectures[Source: National Geographic 2011]

Overview of East Japan Earthquake and TsunamivRole of Schools inJapan as Evacuation
Center
According to the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology (MEXT), there wereabout 42,000 public schools as ofJapan in 2009. The school has twosocial roles: as place of learning andliving for children, and the core of
the community for hosting different
community events in the schools,
such as sport festivals. In its role
as a place of learning and living
for children, the Central Council
for Education of MEXT describes
schools as the following (Takeuchi
and Shaw 2012):“A school should provide balanced
education for the attainment ofknowledge and moral and physicalhealth during the developmental
stage of children. In addition,schools should contribute to lifelong
learning. In particular, focusing onbase and accidence are important
to enhance the academic ability andmake a base of learning for life. Also,
it is fundamental to develop a goodheart in terms of humanity andsocial relations through communal
living with friends of the samegeneration. Most importantly, it isessential to discover the strength ofeach child as well as enhance theircharacter and ability. Thus, every
public school has course instruction
and daily life guidance based on the
proposal of the MEXT.”
Recently, schools have addresseddisaster education in addition
to course instruction and values
education. The importance ofdisaster education at the schoollevel has been recognized in thevi

2

work of Shaw, Shiwaku, Kobayashi
and Kobayashi (2004) and manyother publications. Also, Shiwaku,
Fujieda, Takeuchi and Shaw (2010)
describe that disaster education inschool is an effective means to raiseawareness of not only students but
also their family members and thecommunity (Shaw and Kobayashi
2001).
According to a survey conducted by
the Fire and Disaster Management
Agency (FDMA) in 2008, schools
account for 60% of the publicbuildings used as disasterprevention facilities (Figure 2).
Furthermore, according to the
National Institute for Education
Policy Research (NIER), in 201189.3% of all public schools in Japanare allocated as evacuation sites.
Also, municipality schools accountfor 91.8% of public schools usedas evacuation sites (Figure 3).
Most of the elementary and juniorhigh schools are administered bymunicipalities in Japan. Hence, we
can see that public elementary andjunior high schools are primarily
used as evacuation sites.
There are three reasons for why
schools are often used as evacuationsites during disasters. Firstly, it is
the requirement by the Japanese
law of Disaster Management that
schools will be used as evacuation
centers. Secondly, schools haveinfrastructure and facilities that are
well-built to cope with different
types of natural hazards, forexample earthquake or typhoonresistant construction that can also

Role of Schools in Japan as Evacuation Centerswithstand the impacts of othernatural hazards. Thirdly, schools,
and particularly elementary schools,
have a high degree of visibility and

3.2%
3.2%
1.7%
2.2%

3.6%

familiarity with local communities,
since they have become the centerof a range of community activities.

12.7%
Facilities for social welfare
Facilities for education

8.0%

Govoernment facilities
Community center
Public gymnaium

4.5%

Facilities for medical care
Facilities for people
Facilities for ﬁre department
Others60.9%

2286

Figure 2. Public facilities used in disaster prevention(Source: NIER, 2008, modified by Suda 2012)

230

91.8%
(Municipal school/ School as evacuation place *100）

School as
evacuation place

Municipal school

30513

Prefectual high school
Special-needs school

27,997

Figure 3. Number of schools used as evacuation places
Figure 2. Public facilities used in disaster prevention(Source: NIER, 2011, modified by Suda 2012)(Source: NIER, 2008, modified by Suda 2012)

Level1 / 193 / 3%
Level2 / 747 / 13%

Level3 / 5064 / 84%

Total 6284

Figure 4 School Number of Damage Level
by Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami

Role of Schools in Japan as Evacuation Centersvii

Selected Cases of
Impacts on Schools in
Tohoku Area
This section provides six case studies
on how schools were affected byand responded to the 2011 East
Japan earthquake and tsunami
disaster, which are derived fromdetailed interviews and field surveys
with school principals and municipal
education boards in various cities
across the region. Figure 5 provides
a ﬂow chart on each of these casestudies. The major differences
between them were whether theschool area was damaged by thetsunami or not. Schools that weredamaged were either evacuatedor served as evacuation centersfor other schools and the local
community (Takeuchi and Shaw2012).

School Area

School Area

Received Tsunami

Did not Received Tsunami

YesNo
BecameEvacuation
CenterMove toOther School

Yes
Arahama ES
Toni ESNo
Shishiori ES

3

Yes
Hashigami
JHS

Accepted
Other SchoolNo

Toni JHS

HigashiMIyagino ES

Figure 5 Types of School Situation

viii

Selected Cases of Impacts on Schools in Tohoku Area

3.1 Arahama ES in Sendai City,
Miyagi Prefecture
Arahama elementary school (ES) is a
public school in Sendai city. This school
is located on the Sendai plain, within 200
meters from the coastline. Sendai plain islarge ﬂat area, and the school had served
as an important evacuation centre in thepast due to its height and ﬂat rooftop.
The area was affected by the Chile
Tsunami on 27th February 2010. After thistsunami, the school principal revised thedisaster management plan by increasing
the storing capacity of emergency foodand utilities and moving the evacuation
area from the gymnasium to the 3rd ﬂoorof school building. In consideration of thetime required to take shelter in anotherelementary school (4 kilometers away),
it was decided that students would
be confined to this school during thedisaster.
The school had 16 teacher/staff members
and 94 students on 11 March, 2011.
When the earthquake happened at 14:46,
the 1st and 2nd year students were on
their way back to their homes, whileother students were taking classes in theschool building. Arahama ES’s building is
4 stories with a ﬂat rooftop. Immediately

after the earthquake, students andteacher/staffs evacuated to 4th ﬂoor,
followed by around 233 people from thelocal community. The tsunami came ataround 15:55 and reached up to the 2nd
ﬂoor. At around 17:30, the first helicopter
arrived and started rescuing the students(Figure 6, 11A).
Currently, Arahama ES has is temporarily
relocated to Higashi Miyagino ES. After
receiving the decision to move fromthe education board of Sendai city,
the school received support materials
from the government, NGO/NPOs, andothers sources, making it easier forthe school to resume classes. After therecommencement of schooling, students
started to come by school bus from
temporary houses or rented apartmentsthat were spread over a vast area. This
introduced logistical challenges and thepotential for community dislocation andbreakdown issues, which have become
apparent during the recovery process.

Figure 6. Arahama ES and its surrounding

Selected Cases of Impacts on Schools in Tohoku Areaix

3.2 Toni ES in Kamaishi City,
Iwate Prefecture
Established in 1982, Toni Elementary
School is located in the Sanriku mountainarea, which is characterized by narrowvalleys and steep slopes. 11m concrete
dikes were developed along the coast,
and Toni ES was located near this dike.
The school had 14 teacher/staffs and 68
students on 11th March 2011. At 14:46,
students were taking classes in the schoolbuilding. After the earthquake stopped,
students gathered in the grounds andmoved to a shrine on a nearby mountain.
Some voluntary fire fighters came toschool and helped in the evacuation. This
area received large tsunami waves threetimes in this disaster. After the 2nd wave,
the school principle was worried that thenext one may be even larger than thefirst, and he moved school students andteachers/staff to an even higher location
on National Route 45. After reaching
Route 45, they moved to the community

hall and stayed for one night (Figure 7,
11B).
The school was heavily damaged by
the tsunami, which reached up to
the 3rd floor of the school building.
Consequently, the school’s facilities
could not be used to resume classes, andtemporary space was granted by Heita
ES. After five months after the disaster,
the education board of Kamaishi city
made a plan to merge Toni ES with Toni
JHS (referred to in a later case study)
and other public community facilities.
The school principle agreed to this plan,
but was worried about differences thatexisted between the ES and JHS, suchas differences in class lengths, as well as
requirements of different levels of safetymeasures for ES and JHS. The Toni ES iscurrently operating in a temporary school
facility built in the Toni JHS premise.

Figure 7. Toni ES and its surroundingx

Selected Cases of Impacts on Schools in Tohoku Area

3.3 Shishiori ES in Kesennuma
City, Miyagi Prefecture
Shishiori ES had 135 students and 25
teachers at the schools on 11 March
2011. After the earthquake occurred,
the students and teachers immediately
evacuated to the playground, and thento higher ground once the principal
received information about a tsunami.
Several parents came to receive theirchildren from the school, however, theprincipal asked the parents to evacuatewith the school. Three children who left
the school to evacuate with their parents
were affected by the tsunami on the way,
and two teachers lost their lives outside
the school.

the children to their parents the nextday. The principal returned to his school
after four days to start the cleanup
process, even though his own house
had been washed away. Once it had
been cleaned, the school was instructed
to restart by the municipal education
board, and a graduation ceremony was
conducted. Today, the school continues
to hold special community events andcharity marathons with the school
children, which have served to deepen
its relationship with the local community(Figure 8, 11C).

As evening approached and thetemperature fell, the principal decided
to move the children to a nearby temple
and spend the night there before handing

Figure 8. Shishiori ES and its surrounding

Selected Cases of Impacts on Schools in Tohoku Areaxi

3.4 Toni JHS in Kamaishi City,
Iwate Prefecture
Unlike its elementary school counterpart,
Toni JHS was located on high ground, andthus was not directly affected by tsunami.
However, the building was quite old, hadsuffered significant damage from theearthquake, and could not be used as anevacuation center. When the earthquake
happened, there were 47 students and
11 teachers in the school, and all ofthem evacuated after the earthquake
as a precaution against an approachingtsunami. Based on an earlier simulation,
the school principal had knowledge that
there would be a time lag of 30 minutes
between the earthquake and the arrivalof the tsunami. Therefore, he instructed
the students to help the aged populationfrom the local community to evacuatewith them to Route 45.

damaged by the earthquake in many
places, the school and the community
were isolated had to depend on thelocally-available resources for some time.
Schooling resumed one month after thedisaster, beginning with graduation andwelcome ceremonies that were heldin the gymnasium. Classes were also
conducted in the gymnasium, and in
January 2012, the school was relocated toa temporary building on the playground.

The students spent the night together
with the local community in aconstruction site office near Route 45,
and were received by their parents on thenext day. Since the route 45 was heavily

Figure 9. Shishiori ES and its surroundingxii

Selected Cases of Impacts on Schools in Tohoku Area

3.5 Hashigami JHS in
Kesennuma City,
Miyagi Prefecture
Hashigami JHS was locally renowned for
its involvement in disaster risk reduction
education before the disaster. The school
had conducted several disaster educationand ESD (Education for Sustainable
Development) programs with the local
communities in the past. On 11 March,
2011, there were 167 students and 24
teachers in the school. The 1-2 year
students were busy preparing for thegraduation ceremony, which was to beheld the next day. When the earthquake
occurred, students and teachers
immediately evacuated to the playgroundof the school. As the school is located ina relatively higher area near Route 45,
more than 2,000 people evacuated to theschool after the earthquake, including
both the local community as well as thepassersby from Route 45.

There was no damage to the schoolbuilding due to the earthquake ortsunami, and so the school’s gymnasium
hosted around 800 people from the local
community for several nights following
the disaster. Many of these people
lost their homes to the tsunami, andcontinued to shelter in the gymnasiumfor the next 8 months until temporary
housing was constructed (Figure 10, 11E),
which had a significant impact upon theschool’s continued operation To someextent, this impact continues do to thefact that some of the temporary housing
has been built upon the school grounds.

Figure 10. Hashigami JHS, temporary housing and its surrounding

Selected Cases of Impacts on Schools in Tohoku Areaxiii

3.6 Higashi Miyagino ES in Sendai City,
Miyagi Prefecture
Higashi Miyagino elementary school
is located in the Sendai city, and did
not experience any major damages in
the current disaster. The school had
several vacant classrooms, which werelater used by Arahama elementary
school. There was no major conﬂict
between the students and teachers ofeach schools. Rather, both the schools
conducted joint outing programs for the
students, and other activities related
to the communities. This was possible
because the school had two wings andDamage of
Building

Arahama ES

Toni ES
Shishiori ES

Hashigami
JHS

During Tsunami

the numbers of the students were lessthan the number of the classrooms. The
Arahama elementary school was able
to use a separate wing for their classes,
without disturbing the education of theHigashi Miyagino ES. Therefore, it was
like two different schools in one large
building.
Figure 11 explains with illustration thesituation of each school. Table 4 shows
the summary of the observations in eachschool.
After 3.11

Rescued by
320 people
helicopter or
Tsunami reach to evacuate school
Temporary usage inmove to othersecond ﬂoor
building over 4th
Higashi Miyagino ES
evacuation place
ﬂoor
by oneself
Temporary usage in Heita
Tsunami reach to Move to height
Stay one day in
ES. Temporary school
3rd ﬂoorarea
community hallbuilding was developed.
Tsunami reach to Mover to some Stay three days
Can use all own facility
ﬁrst ﬂoor
placesin temple
Established
Evacuation
Can use own facility. But
Many people
center for overwithout ground. Because,
No Damageevacuate to
8 month andtemporary house build on
schooldeveloped
the groundtemporary housein groundToni JHS

Building broken
by Earthquake

HigashiMiyagino ES

No DamageMove to heightarea

Temporary usage if
Stay three days gymnasium. Temporary
in company ofﬁce school building wasdeveloped.

Table 4 Summary of case study school conditionxiv

Current Situation

Selected Cases of Impacts on Schools in Tohoku Area

Accepted temporaryusage

Figure 11. Situation of each school

Selected Cases of Impacts on Schools in Tohoku Areaxv

Priority of Community
and School Facility andEvacuation Center
After experiencing a disaster ofthis magnitude, the recovery andreconstruction process of local
social and physical infrastructure
has been extremely challenging.
In the areas that were affectedby the tsunami, factors such as
the limited availability of suitableland has made the construction ofhouses under the town recovery
plan diﬃcult. While schools
have traditionally been the most4

important public facility in thecommunity, communities haverecently been challenged by the
rapidly aging population anddecreasing number of school-goingkids.
From the above-mentioned
case studies, the following key
observations can be made in theaftermath of the disaster.

In the Arahama area, the old school building served as an important evacuation area
due to the ﬂatness of the surrounding terrain and the building’s height. Therefore, it isimportant that the new school building be able to withstand future earthquakes, shouldhave a ﬂat roof [for people to evacuate to the rooftop], to be constructed away from thecoast, and to be kept stocked with emergency food, water and utilities and etc. Since thedisaster, a large proportion of the local community has relocated elsewhere, due to a lackof jobs, adequate housing, or infrastructure. It is unlikely that the school will be able to bereconstructed in the absence of these things.
In the Toni area, both the Elementary and Junior High Schools require reconstructionhowever, it is difﬁcult to justify the construction of a new school of the same size, becauseof the smaller number of children due to increasing number of aged population. Therefore,a joint building will be developed housing the elementary school, junior high school, andother public community facilities. The safety of school children also needs to be ensured
given that the school building will be shared with the general public.
From Shishiori ES, the school was not located on the coastline but was reached by thetsunami as it moved upstream along the river. While it only reached the schools groundﬂoor, the school was nonetheless evacuated as there was no way of telling whether theupper level would be affected or not.
From Hashigami JHS, the school had been used as an evacuation center for 10 months
following the disaster, and is still being used as the location of temporary housing.
However, since the school gymnasium was not able to be used for 10 months, the qualityof education that students of the school received was affected.

xvi

Priority of Community and School Facility and Evacuation CenterFigure 12 summarizes the needs
and issues of school recovery. It is
important to keep the balance ofthe expected roles of schools ingeneral time and in recovery time.
There are three elements linked
to the school: the school needs tobe a safe building since it hosts thechildren. It needs to ensure thecontinuity of the education during
emergency time in the schools.
And, schools also need to serve as
an evacuation center.
In the context of the East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami, there areseveral challenges for the recoveryof the education sector: budget
related to the school construction
is an important issue. There need
to be an allocated budget for

temporary schools, followed by site
selection and construction of newschools which require significant
resources. Population drain,aging
population and decreasing numberof children are some of thechallenging issues which need to be
kept in mind for the reconstructionof the new schools in the affectedareas.
In many schools, due to death of theschool teachers, there is a shortageof the school teachers, which also
poses a challenge for the continuityof the education in the affected
region. Finally, the mental care ofschool children suffering from PTSD
[Post Traumatic Stress Disorder]is also an important issue for theschool recovery.

Figure 12. Needs and Issues of School Recovery

Priority of Community and School Facility and Evacuation Center

xvii

Key Lessons Learned
from the Disaster and its
AftermathThe enormous impact that the 2011
East Japan earthquake and tsunami
disaster had on the education sector
warrants an in-depth examinationof lessons learned from the disasterin order to reduce the risk of futuredisasters. School damages in theaffected areas need further detailed
investigations to understand thereasons for the damages and theirpotential future remedy.
Broadly, key lessons can be

5categorized into:
・Structure, Location, Layoutof schools: Location of schoolbuilding is a crucial issue. In mostcases, the buildings are locatedin close proximity of the coast[within 100 to 200 m from thecoast line]. In most cases, the
new schools have slated roof,
which prohibited the children
and communities to take shelteron the roof. The slanted roof isPriority 1: Developing institutional basis for disaster risk reduction (DRR) in education
Task 1. Engage in multi-stakeholder dialogue to establish a foundation for DRR education
Task 2. Create or strengthen mechanisms for the systematic coordination of DRR education
Task 3. Assess and develop an institutional basis for DRR education
Task 4. Prioritize DRR and allocate appropriate resources for DRR education
Priority 2: Identifying, assessing, and monitoring disaster risks in the education sector
Task 5. Establish risk assessments for the education sector
Task 6. Strengthen early warning in the education sector through effective communicationand dissemination mechanisms.
Priority 3: Building a culture of safety through DRR education
Task 7. Develop program to raise public awareness of DRR
Task 8. Include DRR in the education system
Task 9. Develop DRR training and learning at the school and community
Task 10. Enhance dissemination of DRR information
Priority 4: Reducing the underlying risk factors in the education sector
Task 11. Environment: Understand sustainable ecosystem, environment, and natural resourcesmanagement
Task 12. Establish measures to incorporate DRR in urban and land-use planning
Task 13. Structures: Strengthen mechanisms for improved building safety and protection ofcritical facilities in the education sector
Task 14. Disaster recovery: Develop a recovery planning process that incorporates DRR
Priority 5: Preparing for effective emergency response and recovery in education
Task 15. Build on disaster preparedness capacities and mechanisms in the education sector
Task 16. Assess disaster response preparedness capacities and mechanisms throughstrengthened planning
Table 4. Sixteen Tasks Relevant to the Education Sector (Source: Gwee et al, 2011)

xviii

Key Lessons Learned from the Disaster and its Aftermathmade to avoid water logging andstructural decay. Also, it has been
observed that schools which werealigned parallel to the coast havehigher damage than thos which
lay perpendicular to the coast.
・Function of schools andEducational Continuity: Whileschools were used as evacuation
center, in several schools, people
from local communities remained
for more than 5 to 6 months. This
had serious implications to theeducational continuity in the postdisaster environment. This needs
to be incorporated in the futureschool level contingency planning.
・Human Resources andTraining: At the aftermath ofthe disaster, the schools facea shortage of teachers, which

has affected the continuity ofeducation. Students from theeducation faculty from local
universities have tried to fillthis gap; however, this also
needs to be incorporated in the
educational continuity planning inpost disaster situations.
・Effectiveness of Disaster
Education: As exemplified in the
Kamaishi experiences, disastereducation played an importantrole in the students’ evacuation
behavior. In the secondary
schools, the children evacuatedalong with the elementary school
children. The role of teachers in
implementing disaster educationin schools needs to be highlighted.
・New role of school and multistakeholder dialogue: In the

Figure 13: Layout of school buildings contributing to damages

Key Lessons Learned from the Disaster and its Aftermathxixchanging demographic condition,schools need to play increasingrole in the community as acommunity facility. Therefore,
the reconstruction of the schoolbuilding needs interactions
with a diversity of stakeholders,
including community members.
Gwee, Shaw and Takeuchi (2011)
identified and adapted 16 of theoriginal 22 tasks suggested forthe implementation of the Hyogo
Framework for Action (HFA) for
use in the education sector. The
16 tasks are referred to as E-HFA
or Education in the HFA as shownin Table 5. The following analysis
attempts to link lessons learned
from the disaster to the E-HFA
framework.
In several school buildings,
structural design was a critical factor
in whether a school building wasable to withstand the earthquake
and tsunami or not. Despite themagnitude 9 earthquake, few ofthe school buildings highlighted in
the case studies partially or totallycollapsed, attributed to their being
retrofitted for seismic safety, as
part of national and prefecture-led
programs. This shows a high levelof education governance, linked
to the E-HFA Priority 1 [Task 3].
However, the damage as a resultof the tsunami was observed to be
widespread, and in many cases,
multi-hazard approaches were notincorporated, which is linked to
E-HFA priority 4 [Task 13].
In terms of structure, many of
the school buildings had curved
roofs instead of ﬂat roofs, which
prevented the students andcommunity members from taking

xxshelter on the rooftop. The curved
roofs were promoted to reducewater logging in heavy rainfall
areas, but they became a barrier
to evacuation during the tsunami,
exemplifying the need for multihazard assessment when engaging
in DRR. The other important factor
relating to school building design
within the context of the disasteris layout. It was found that schools
positioned perpendicularly to thecoastline were not damaged as
badly as those lying parallel tothe coastline, such as those in the
Sanriku area, which received thefull force of the tsunami along their
entire length (Figure 13).
The location of the school wasanother crucial issue. Many of themost heavily damaged schools
were located within 100-200
meters of the coastline [e.g., theArahama elementary school, Toni
elementary school etc.], relevant
to both Priority 2 [Task 5, in termsof risk assessment] and Priority
4 [Task 12, in terms of land use
planning]. Schools, being essentialsocial infrastructure, need theirrisk assessed appropriately, an indepth understanding of underlying
risk factors, and proper land use
planning.
Schools can have a life-saving
function during emergency periods,
as exemplified by E-HFA priority 5[Task 15 and 16]. They can provide
accessible and safe evacuation
centers and later provide temporary
housing for evacuees whenundamaged, as Hashikami JHS didfor several months. However, it isimportant to recognize that thismay have a negative impact upon
the quality of education delivered

Key Lessons Learned from the Disaster and its Aftermath

by the school after the disaster has
ended. In the case of Arahama ES,
students and local communities
were required to sleep in theschool building, exemplifying theimportance of the provision of
emergency goods and food, as per
E-HFA Priority 5 [task 16, emergency
response capacity].
Human resources, teacher
trainings, and emergency manuals
were other key factors. In mostcases, school principals had tospearhead the evacuation of thestudents, and were forced to makecritically important decisions over

E-HFA

E-HFA1

E-HFA2

E-HFA3

E-HFA4

E-HFA5

Tasks

Structre,locaion,layoutevacuations without the availabilityof clear information on the tsunami
timing and height. Althoughevacuation sites were identified inemergency manuals, teachers also
had to make decisions based on theirlocal situation, and in some cases,
moved with the students to fouror five different places in the faceof uncertainty[such as the case of
Shishiori ES]. This underscores theneed for teacher training in decision
making during emergencies. Thisis related to E-HFA Priority 3 [Task9: training]. Also, the developmentof a proper management plan for
education in emergency is required,

Key Lessons and Issues
New role of
Function and
Human
Effectivenessschool and multiEducational Resourcesof Disasterstakeholder
Continuity and Training Education
dialogue

Tasks1
Tasks2
Tasks3
Tasks4
Tasks5
Tasks6
Tasks7
Tasks8
Tasks9Tasks10
Tasks11
Tasks12
Tasks13
Tasks14
Tasks15
Tasks16
Low Performance, Need improvements
Moderate PerformanceHigh Performance
Table 6. Key initial lessons of EJET education sectors in terms of E-HFA

Key Lessons Learned from the Disaster and its Aftermathxxias per E-HFA 5 [Task 15: disaster
response capacity].
In several cities, disaster education
helped respond effectively tothe earthquake and tsunami
in accordance with evacuation
procedures, including those who
were not inside the school at thetime of the disaster. A classic
example of this is the “Kamaishi
Miracle,” where many students
spontaneously and independently
evacuated during the earthquake
in line with their DRR education.
During the evacuation, the Kamaishi
Higashi JHS took with them the
Unotsumai ES students, both of
the schools were located nearby
each other on the coastline, andwhich had jointly conducted had
DRR education and emergency
drills. Thus, E-HFA Priority 3[Task 8: include DRR in education
system] was found to be extremely
important.
During the school recovery
programs, in several cities, multistakeholder collaboration wasestablished in cooperation withlocal residential associations,school principals, education
boards, academics and otherrelated stakeholders. As outlined
above, there is an increasingly
aging population across muchof the affected area, and thenumber of school going children
are gradually decreasing. This
has necessitated schools to form
close relationships with local
communities so that schools canbe also used as a community
facilities. Thus, the community
needs and priorities are now
reﬂected in new and reconstructedschools, in accordance with multi-

xxii

stakeholder dialogues with the local
community leaders, PTA, school
principles. and education boards.
This process has been supported
by MEXT through the initiation of
the concept of “school-centeredresilient community development”
in the affected areas. Therefore
E-HFA priority 1 [Task 1: multistakeholder dialogue] has hadstrong significance and importance.
Table 6 shows a tentative evaluationof the key lessons and issues fromthe current disaster.
Fernandez, Shaw and Takeuchi(2012) have made an analysis
from 25 specific cases of schooldamage from 11 different Asian
countries and 6 hazard scenarios.
In these cases, the most commonly
implemented recovery actions
relate to Task 14 (disaster recovery),Task 7 (public awareness of DRR),
Task 13 (physical structures,i.e., building codes, retrofitting,protection of critical facilities, etc.),
Task 15 (disaster preparedness,i.e., drills, standby funds, etc.), andTask 12 (land-use planning, i.e., safe
location for schools). Tasks underPriority 4 (reducing underlying risks)were performed in about half ofthese cases, however neither of thefour tasks in Priority 1 (institutional
basis for DRR in education) werecarried out in any of the 25 cases,
including Task 6 (early warning)
and Task 16 (assessment of disaster
preparedness). The case study
lessons, categorized in accordancewith the E-HFA priority area they
belong to, are then plotted ona graph and compared with theresults reported in the 2011 Global
Assessment Report on Disaster Risk
Reduction (GAR 2011).

Key Lessons Learned from the Disaster and its Aftermath

According to the GAR 2011, whereas
substantial progress is being madeglobally against the HFA priority
targets in early warning, disaster
preparedness, and emergency
response, many countries are still
struggling to address underlying risk
drivers (Figure 14). Interestingly,
the lessons reﬂected in the 25
case studies shows almost the
opposite tendency (Figure 15),in that Priorities 4 and 3 were
performed on more occasions thanthe other priorities. Figure 15 seems
to suggest that perspectives on
disaster risk tend to change after
one has experienced a disaster,hence the difference in priorities.
It is interesting that although thecases are more on post-disaster
response and recovery, HFA 4, which
focuses on underlying risk factors,
is incorporated into the recovery
process. This is significant in thesense that it encompasses the
future risk reduction perspectives.
For obvious reasons, the education
system is focused on and has
given more emphasis to HFA 3.
It should also be noted that theexamples presented here are rather
randomly selected from different
Asian countries on different typesof disasters. A more systematic
analysis may provide more insightin the progress of E-HFA. The

analysis from the current cases ofschool damages in the 2011 East
Japan earthquake and tsunami
disaster shows that all the E-HFA
priorities have been treated withequal importance, although inreality they should be performedat different levels by different setsof stakeholders in accordance with
their own contexts.
The role of the school goesbeyond that of a provider ofeducation. Damage to the school
is not restricted to the education
sector. School is directly linked tothe community, and thus school
recovery is linked to community
recovery. When considering
disaster risk reduction (DRR)
education, it should not be limited
to the education curriculum only,
but should also include related
issues such as structural andnon-structural safety measures;legislative measures supporting the
integration, implementation, as well
as funding of DRR in the education
sector; risk assessments and early
warning systems; DRR training
for school staff, etc. An integrated
approach is necessary and the E-HFA
tasks can help cover the various
important issues that need to beaddressed.

Average score of progress
3.5

2007-2009

3.4

2009-2011

3.3

50%

3.2

40%

3.1
3.0

30%

2.9
2.8

20%

2.7

Governance Risk Identiﬁcation
and Institutional
andarrangements
early warning

Knowledge
andeducation

Underlying
risk

Preparedness
andresponse

10%0Priority1

HFA Priority Areas

Figure 14. Global progress against the HFA
Source: UNISDR, 2011

Priority2

Priority3

Priority4

Priority5

Figure 15. Classification of the Asian Case Studies
According to E-HFA[Source: IEDM 2012, Fernandez, Shaw, Takeuchi 2012]

Key Lessons Learned from the Disaster and its Aftermathxxiii

References
Fernandez G., Shaw R. Takeuchi Y. (2012): School damages in Asian countries, and its
implication to Tohoku recovery, in Shaw R. and Takeuchi Y., eds., East Japan Earthquake
and Tsunami, Research Publishers.
Gwee, Qi Ru, Rajib Shaw, and Yukiko Takeuchi. 2011. Disaster Education Policy: Current
and Future. In Rajib Shaw, Koichi Shiwaku, and Yukiko Takeuchi (Eds.). Disaster Education.
Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing,
IEDM (International Environment and Disaster Management Laboratory) 2012. School
Recovery: Lessons from Asia. Kyoto, Japan: Kyoto University
Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). http://www.jma.go.jp/en/tsunami/
focus_04_20110311145000.html, accessed on 18th March 2011
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), 2011, Report of
Damage Information by Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami, No.176, pp26 (Japanese)
National Institute for Education Policy Research (NIER), 2011, Report of School
Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction, (Japanese) http://www.nier.go.jp/ shisetsu/pdf/
bousaikinou2011.pdf (accessed 15 Nov 2011)
National Institute for Education Policy Research (NIER), 2008, Report of Enhancing School
Facility, (Japanese) http://www.nier.go.jp/shisetsu/ pdf/bousaitsuiki.pdf (accessed 15
Nov 2011)
National Police Agency of Japan (NPA): “Damage Situation and Police Countermeasuresassociated with 2011Tohoku district - off the Pacific Ocean Earthquake”, http://www.npa.
go.jp/archive/keibi/biki/higaijokyo_e.pdf, accessed on 18th March 2011
Okada, T, 2008, For Safety and Fertile School Facility, Education board newsletter, No.700,
pp7-10 (Japanese).
Shaw, R., Shiwaku, K., Kobayashi, H., and Kobayashi, M., 2004,Linking experience,education, perception and earthquake preparedness, Disaster Prevention andManagement, Vol.13, No.1, pp39-49.
Shiwaku, K., Fujieda, A., Takeuchi, Y., and Shaw, R., 2010, Utilization of Disaster
Experiences in school Disaster Education in Disaster Affected Area, Japan Society for
Natural Disaster Science journal, No.29-1, pp83-95.
Suda Y. (2012): Linking human behavior, participatory mapping and community
infrastructure for DRR: Approach in Shiso city and Kamaishi city in JAPAN, Master thesis,
Kyoto University
Takeuchi Y. and Shaw R. (2012): Damage to education sector, in Shaw R. and Takeuchi Y.,
eds., East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, Research Publishers
UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) (2011): Global
Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR. Available
at http://www.preventionweb.net/ english/hyogo/gar/2011/en /home/index.html

xxiv

References