2013 EERI Annual Meeting Session: School Seismic Safety

1. Global School Earthquake Safety
Photo credits:: China Earthquake Authority (left); NiCEE, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (right)
Dr. Janise Rodgers
Project Manager

2. Outline
• An overview of the
global problem
• What’s being done
• Safe by 2033?
URM-free by 2033?
Photo credit: Janise Rodgers, GHI

4. What we’re up against
Photo credits: Janise Rodgers, GHI

5. Lots of progress – a few highlights
• Progress in building new schools to code
• Major programs for existing schools:
Cyprus, Turkey, Italy, Israel, Nepal and more
• Lots of awareness and preparedness programs
• Policy development and planning
But:
• The risk is still unacceptably high
• Countries continue to build unsafe schools
• Current efforts fall far short of what is needed

6. What Works
An effective school safety program will
1. Stipulate the desired safety performance for school
buildings and construct all new schools to meet this
standard;
2. Educate students on natural hazards and risk
reduction measures;
3. Provide preparedness training;
4. Review conditions of all existing school buildings
and retrofit, relocate or replace unacceptably
vulnerable buildings;
5. Draft and enact plans for post-event continuity of
education services.
From School Earthquake and Tsunami Safety in APEC Economies:
Reducing Risk and Improving Preparedness, GeoHazards International

7. An example of doing what works:
New Zealand
• New schools built to code with earthquake
resistant provisions, beginning in 1935; new
unreinforced brick schools banned
• Unreinforced brick schools replaced 1935-1990s
• Vulnerability assessment of remaining 21,000
buildings, 1998-2001
• Work to remedy vulnerabilities 2002 onwards
• The Test: 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes

8. Major, costly damage (29 schools required rebuilding consent)
Education disrupted
NO Collapses
NO studentscourtesy Nicholas died at school New Zealand Ministry of Education
Slide or teachers Pole and Kim Shannon,

9. An example of quick action: Bhutan
• New schools built to a code beginning in 1998
without a major damaging earthquake
• Need for low-cost schools in remote areas
means some schools built with local materials
are not fully to code
• The Test: M6.1 2009 Mongar and 2011 Sikkim
earthquakes

10. M6.1 2009 Mongar Earthquake
Beyond Repair Major Repair Partial Repair Minor Repair
Total
(BR) (MR) (PR) (MiR)
8 17 44 24 93
Photo credit Karma Sonam, School Planning and Building Division, Bhutan

11. Bhutan’s Response Since 2009
• Review + update of standard school designs
• Preparedness measures at school level
• Education and training
• National action plan to improve school
earthquake safety just completed
• Nationwide vulnerability assessment of
school buildings to start this year

12. Safe by 2033?
Photo credit: Janise Rodgers, GHI
We need a focused, intensive global investment in
school earthquake safety

13. Get involved locally and globally!
Photo credit: Janise Rodgers, GHI
Thank You
www.geohaz.org