58795 EAP DRM KnowledgeNotes Working Paper Series No. 22 disaster risk management in east asia and the Pacific Protecting SchoolS and hoSPitalS from natural hazardS By Matteo Ferrucci the need for action Evidence from past events in the East Asia and Pacific © Yekaixp | Dreamstime.com Region demonstrates that such critical infrastructure as health and educational facilities is heavily exposed to natural disasters. For example, the Wenchuan Earth- quake, which affected China in 2008, impacted 52 percent of the health care centers1 and damaged more than 14,000 educational facilities killing over 5,000 stu- dents2. In Myanmar in 2008, Cyclone Nargis damaged or destroyed nearly 75 percent of the health facilities and more than half schools in the area affected3. Super Ty- phoon Durian hit the Philippines in 2006 and damaged more than half of the schools in five different cities, costing US$20 million4. In this scenario, there is a growing necessity of preventing natural hazards from having such a devastating impact on critical infrastructure. Enhancing the resilience of schools and hospitals to natural disasters is a responsibility of all authorities and stakeholders involved and a priority for the Disaster Risk Management (DRM) agenda. Not only would lives and property be saved, but more effective emergency management will be enabled. In fact, schools and hospitals can serve as community shelters during a disaster or as a place to coordinate post disaster activities. Considering the critical role of schools and hospitals, priority should be placed on identifying and reducing the weaknesses of existing facilities and on improving the building standards for new construction. While damage and losses associated with extreme events may exceed a country's GDP, the implementation of mitigation measures aimed at improving the resilience of existing facilities provides a cost-effective preventive solution, generally limited to 4 percent of the initial investment cost.5 1 Source: www.unicef.org/china/reallives_10352.html 2 Source: WB Beijing Office, China 3 Source: www.unicef.org/infobycountry/media_49541.html 4 Source: Risk Red: Disaster-Resilient Education and Safe Schools: What Educational Authorities Can Do 5 WHO (2007) Disaster Risk Reduction and Preparedness of Health Facilities. A literature review Prepared by the WHO Kobe Centre, Japan This working paper series is produced by the East Asia and Pacific Disaster Risk Management Team of the World Bank, with support from the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). The series is meant to provide just-in-time good practice examples and lessons learned from projects and programs related to aspects of disaster risk management. 2 disaster risk management in east asia and the Pacific imProVing the SafetY of eXiSting ation, and continuity of operations during a hazardous facilitieS event (functional protection). This is particularly true in the case of hospitals, which are needed to be fully func- The objective of improving the resilience of existing key tional centers of emergency response and relief. For this assets can be achieved through the development and reason, securing of non-structural elements is critical. implementation of a disaster risk reduction (DRR) plan. The plan identifies and prioritizes appropriate The degree of vulnerability mitigation to be achieved is vulnerability mitigation measures aimed at strengthen- based on the results of the risk assessment and on the ing the structural integrity and spatial safety of a facility. level of performance desired, as well as on the resources and capacity available in the country. Performing a risk assessment. The development of an effective DRR plan should start by assessing the causal According to the nature of vulnerability, mitigation factors of disasters and their relation to the building measures can be divided into three categories: (i) struc- structure and site, a phase known as risk assessment. tural retrofitting: aimed at improving the building's ca- Risk assessment is the combination of (i) hazard as- pacity to withstand the forces exerted by natural haz- sessment aimed at identifying the nature, location, in- ards: adding resisting elements, increasing strength/ tensity, and frequency of an extreme event through the ductility, and improving connections between elements; utilization of multi-hazard or hazard-specific risk maps (ii) approaches that focus on spatial safety: relocation of the and (ii) vulnerability assessment focused on evaluating building or its components, and restraining the mobility the degree of exposure of the construction site or the of furniture and equipment; and (iii) strategies for func- facility (or a sample set of facilities) to the identified tional vulnerability reduction: ensuring safe access, con- threats. The nature of the vulnerability can be: (a) struc- tinuity of water and electricity supply, warning systems, tural, attributable to the elements that are part of the and safety equipment. resistant system; (b) non-structural, architectural com- Preparing and implementing the DRR plan. The out- ponents, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical items comes of the assessment process and the identified mit- that provide utilities and services to the building; or (c) igation strategies should become part of a documented functional, on-site accessibility, availability of open spac- plan, together with other relevant information, such as es, equipment and supplies, and security and alarm sys- timeframe for implementation, sources of funding, and tems. This is because, in order to avoid loss of function compliance with existing building codes. and secondary damage and to prevent injury during a disaster, in addition to strengthening the structure itself, Prioritizing retrofitting interventions. When a large it is also necessary to secure non-structural components inventory of exposed schools and hospitals exists within and ensure the functionality of all services. a country or project area, prudent investing in retrofit- ting solutions should be planned over time and accord- The structural vulnerability assessment comprises a ing to the resources available. The prioritization scheme preliminary vulnerability screening of the facilities at should be based on the vulnerability assessment of each risk. It determines compliance with a set of standards stand-alone facility and on cost­benefit considerations. or acceptable criteria and a detailed vulnerability in- The latter rely on weighted indexes that account for the vestigation focused on evaluating structural and spatial relative importance of multiple aspects that contribute weaknesses of the facility by means of quantitative tech- to overall risk. These include vicinity to the source(s) niques. of risk(s), building age and material, and number of Identifying risk mitigation measures based on an ac- children/patients. The implementation of retrofitting ceptable level of performance. Interventions should solutions should be prioritized on a case-specific ba- be based on pre-defined risk reduction goals and ob- sis and the technical measures to be implemented and jectives. In the case of critical facilities, risk mitigation their costs­benefits subject to site-specific feasibility measures are aimed at achieving an acceptable level of studies. One of the best arguments for demonstrating performance that promotes life protection, safe evacu- that safety in schools and hospitals can be achieved is to Protecting Schools and hospitals from natural hazards 3 showcase experience from different countries that have conStruction of neW hazard- completed or are undertaking critical facility protection reSilient facilitieS projects. Box 1 describes an example of good practice in the prioritization of retrofitting interventions under a In circumstances such as reconstruction after a ma- project funded by the World Bank, and Box 2 tells the jor natural disaster or when the cost of reinforcement success story of a Chinese teacher who staved off the is higher than a predefined threshold, construction of mortal effects of the Wenchuan Earthquake in 2008. new hazard-resilient facilities is required. In this case, risk can be mitigated by incorporating disaster risk re- duction (DRR) principles into national construction Box 1. retrofitting/reconstruction standards aimed at minimizing the vulnerability of the of Public facilities under the istanbul Seismic risk mitigation and emergency assets and their occupants to natural hazards. In many Preparedness Project (2005) developing countries, construction codes lack the tech- Under the Seismic Risk Mitigation for Priority Public Facilities nical soundness and rigor necessary to ensure adequate component of a World Bank project, a total of 840 critical performance of the structure during an extreme event public facilities, including schools, hospitals, polyclinics, and and do not capture the importance of site selection and schools dormitories, were shortlisted for retrofitting from a comprehensive building inventory prepared by the Istanbul emergency preparedness as major components of spatial Governorship Disaster Management Center (AYM). The se- safety. Moreover, an insufficiency of certification and lection process was based on such criteria as accessibility, accreditation of engineers, inspectors, and contractors year of construction, distance from fault lines, building capac- ity, and other relevant characteristics depending on the type coupled with lengthy permit approval processes (which of facility. A set of coefficients indicating the relative impor- could take over 200 days6 in many developing countries) tance of each criterion was used to weight each factor in- lead to corruption. On the contrary, the government volved in the selection process. When feasibility studies and cost­benefit analysis demonstrated the limited effectiveness should enforce building codes in a programmatic man- of retrofitting or when a facility was anticipated to be par- ner, incentivizing public institutions to build according ticularly critical for emergency response, the structure was to standards. In Madagascar's recent cyclone-resistant considered eligible for reconstruction. building regulations, for example, builders and inspec- tors are liable for potential disaster damages and losses, and community-based organizations are allowed to press judicial charges after a disaster. Box 2. a Success Story: angel Ye and the Sangzao middle School1 While there are universal principles for hazard resil- The Chinese government estimates that more than 7,000 ient construction (construction criteria are based on the schoolrooms collapsed in the Wenchuan Earthquake. Nev- probability of a natural hazard striking a given area), ertheless, there is a farming town in central China where all when planning for the reconstruction of key facilities, 2,323 students survived the earthquake. This was made pos- sible thanks to the efforts of the school's principal, Ye Zhip- it is important to bear in mind local methodologies. ing, better known by the locals as Angel Ye, who in the 1990s Lessons learned from past events, such as the 2010 successfully pressed the county government for US$58,000 earthquake in Chile, demonstrate that non-engineered to retrofit schools. With the funds he was able to carry out risk mitigation works, including insertion of iron rods into the structures based on local building techniques like con- concrete columns and reinforcement of the balcony railings. fined masonry or prefabricated steel-framed structures These structural reinforcement measures, coupled with re- (see top photo on page 4) were largely undamaged and current evacuation drills, explain why the Sangzao schools remained standing while unreinforced schools collapsed. For saved lives, despite the fact that they were located in example, the Beichuan Middle School, located just 20 miles areas with extensive damage. north of Sangzao, failed, killing 1,000 students and teachers. 1 The New York Times: "How Angel of Sichuan Saved School in Quake" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/ world/asia/16quake.html 6 Source: www.doingbusiness.org/ExploreTopics/DealingLicenses/ 4 disaster risk management in east asia and the Pacific Box 3. california field act of 1933 Following the devastating Long Beach Earthquake, which destroyed or damaged a total of 230 school buildings, public awareness of seismic risk pushed the California State Legis- lature to pass the Field Act within 30 days of the quake. The core of the Act was the banning of unreinforced masonry con- struction and the requirement of factoring seismic loads into retrofitting of existing assets and construction of new facili- ties. The Act also supported the development of independent inspection and quality control procedures to be reviewed by qualified engineers and architects. The early benefits of the Act in terms of school safety were demonstrated seven years later when an earthquake larger in magnitude than the Long Beach Earthquake (the Imperial Valley Earthquake) caused negligible or no damage to buildings constructed after the It is not only about the structure. Hazard-resilient Field Act. More importantly, since the Act has been in force, construction is based on the combination of (i) struc- no compliant building has suffered partial or total collapse or caused the injury or death of a student or teacher. Moreover, tural integrity measures aimed at ensuring that the the cost of repairing damage to schools in compliance with structure is capable of resisting the forces exerted by the the Field Act has ranged from 10 to 100 times below repair natural hazard and (ii) spatial safety measures such as costs for other schools. selection of a safe construction site and emergency pre- paredness and evacuation plans effectively integrated nity. Education, training, and community participation with early warning systems. Spatial safety approaches are the key elements of capacity development, which in focus on such concepts as site development schemes, turn is a central strategy for reducing disaster risk. Risk land use planning, and risk mapping. awareness can be strengthened at an institutional level Similar to retrofitting, hazard-resilient construction is by enforcing building codes (see Box 4), creating initia- based on the concept of performance-based objectives. tives to involve all societal sectors ­ from the commu- In the case of educational and health facilities, given nity to local governments (see Box 5) ­ or establishing their need to remain functional and provide shelter dur- disaster education on a single facility basis. The latter ing and after a disaster, the level of performance to be encompasses the integration of disaster-related courses met should be higher than that of other facilities. This in the formal curricula, extracurricular informal educa- entails the adoption of more stringent design criteria tion, teacher training, and dissemination of successful and systematic implementation of inspection, mainte- case studies. Such activities could range from the ex- nance, and monitoring procedures. Box 3 shows how planation of emergency preparedness and evacuation California's being at the fore in seismic risk mitigation plans to basic first aid courses or special science or ge- dates back to the 1930s. ography modules related to the mechanisms of natural While inadequacy of building codes is responsible for the majority of structural and non-structural damages, in some cases the key is the lack of enforcement and imple- mentation monitoring. A significant increase in the code enforcement level can be accomplished by promoting a culture of risk knowledge and hazard awareness. What about the people? Safe construction alone is not sufficient to prevent disasters. The concept of secur- ing schools and hospitals must encompass crosscutting themes of disaster management like risk awareness and disaster preparedness in the school or hospital commu- Protecting Schools and hospitals from natural hazards 5 hazards. In the case of hospitals, training programs for maps, which in turn could be superimposed on maps personnel are essential to ensuring that primary opera- containing schools and hospital locations. This would tions continue to function in the event of an earthquake allow identifying priority facilities and appropriate cost- (e.g., train the individual to operate emergency power- effective mitigation measures to be implemented. generating equipment in hospital facilities). In risk mitigation, a multi-hazard approach involves design consideration of the potential risks deriving Box 4. enforcement of Building codes from all natural hazards affecting an area. The resulting under the istanbul Seismic risk cumulative risk cannot be offset if only select hazardous mitigation and emergency Preparedness events are factored into the design. Accounting for the Project (2005) full range of potential natural hazards in performance- With the objective of strengthening the institutional and tech- based design will lead to greater effectiveness and cost- nical capacity of the Greater Istanbul Municipality and district efficiency of the retrofitting or construction process. municipalities to enforce building codes and compliance with land use plans, a set of subcomponents were planned and implemented as part of a well-defined strategy. The strategy for building code enforcement was based on the key find- hoW much doeS it coSt? ings of a study carried out during project preparation, which revealed that the lack of enforced building codes was attrib- A cost-effective solution. While natural disasters have uted to gaps in the legal framework and inadequacy of certi- been traditionally seen as unpredictable events and ef- fications and public understanding. The strategy focused on public awareness campaigns, the development of a regula- forts of countries and donors have concentrated on post tory framework to better enforce building codes and increase disaster reconstruction, scientific advances and the in- compliance with land use plans, voluntary accreditation and creased capability to predict and mitigate the impacts training of engineers, and increased transparency in the issu- of disasters have shifted cost-effectiveness towards the ance of building permits. pre-disaster side of the disaster risk management spec- trum. The financial cost of mitigating the personal trag- edies and economic repercussions of natural hazards is Box 5. Shake Out ­ Get Ready! minimal when the society and the governing bodies are Program in california well informed and able to advocate for the proper tech- A culture of disaster risk reduction can be built through niques. the implementation of disaster simulations and evacuation drills on a regular basis. While these activities are needed For example, a mitigation investment to improve the to test the effectiveness of the early warning and response systems, elevating them to educational and learning events structural integrity of a school or hospital would in- is, in fact, important. An example is the Shake Out ­ Get crease total construction costs by no more than 1­2 per- Ready initiative recently launched by the State of California in cent. Considering that interventions aimed at reducing partnership with organizations including the U.S. Geological non-structural vulnerability would add an additional 2 and Survey (USGS) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It consists of having a simultaneous earth- percent for hospitals and 1 percent for schools, the total quake simulation drill across all social sectors, from individu- premium would not exceed 4 percent of the initial in- als to local governments, in order to sensitize the population vestment cost. to seismic risk. Ghesquiere et al. (2006) focused on the seismic proba- bilistic cost­benefit analysis of sample facilities (not limited to schools and hospitals, but also including a multi-hazard aPProach administrative buildings and fire stations). The work Construction and retrofitting of key facilities should suggested that retrofitting significantly decreases the be conducted using a multi-hazard approach, both in Probable Maximum Loss (PML) for all types of build- the risk assessment and the risk mitigation phases. In ings; in particular, the losses for schools were reduced risk assessment, this could be carried out by overlap- from 30 to 4 percent of the asset value. For recurrent ping single hazard locations to produce multi-hazard and less intense events like cyclones, the incremental 6 disaster risk management in east asia and the Pacific benefits of investing in stronger codes may not neces- Cost­Benefit Analysis. Policy Research Working Paper 3939. sarily outweigh the benefits derived from building new Washington, DC: World Bank. non-engineered facilities in areas that lack health or Jha, A. 2010. "Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Management educational services. in East Asia Pacific." PowerPoint Presentation. Washington, DC: World Bank. With regard to new construction, the payoff for in- PAHO/WHO. 2003. Protecting New Health Facilities corporating hazard resistance is enormous. The in- from Disasters: Guidelines for the Promotion of Disaster troduction of hazard resistant design measures in the Mitigation. Washington, DC: PAHO/World Bank. construction of new facilities would increase costs by PAHO/World Bank. 2004. Guidelines for Vulnerability 5­24 percent, which is considerably low compared to Reduction in the Design of New Health Facilities. the cost of reconstruction or damage repair after a major Washington, DC: PAHO/World Bank. disaster. Even so, the most powerful argument in favor Tanhueaco, R. 2010. Guidance Note: One Million Safe Schools and Hospitals. Geneva: United Nations International of improving the resilience of buildings is the societal Strategy for Disaster Reduction - Asia and the Pacific. benefit derived from a hospital or school that is safe and WHO. 2006. Field Manual for Capacity Assessment of fully operational during a disaster. Health Facilities: Responding to Emergencies. Manila: World Health Organization, Western Pacific Region. referenceS and KeY reSourceS Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). Guidance Note for Integration of Disaster Risk Reduction in World Bank Health Sector Projects. Mimeo. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). Guidance Note for Integration of Disaster Risk Reduction in Education Sector for World Bank Projects. Mimeo. Ghesquiere, F., L. Jamin, and O. Mahul. 2006. Earthquake Vulnerability Reduction Program in Colombia: A Probabilistic east asia and the Pacific region The World Bank 1818 H St. NW, Washington, D.C., 20433 http://www.worldbank.org/eap Special thanks and appreciation are extended to the partners who support GFDRR's work to protect livelihoods and improve lives: ACP Secretariat, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, and the World Bank.