Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Risk flood
Citation preview
ORI GIN AL PA PER
Climate disaster resilience of the education sectorin Thua Thien Hue Province, Central Vietnam
Thi My Thi Tong • Rajib Shaw • Yukiko Takeuchi
Received: 5 October 2011 / Accepted: 31 March 2012 / Published online: 21 April 2012� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract Recognizing the importance of building disaster resilience for education sector,
this study aims to develop a methodology to measure the level of educational resilience to
cope with natural disasters and is then applied in Central Vietnam. The assessment tool in
this paper is developed through a combination of climate disaster resilience indexes and the
16 tasks of Hyogo framework for action designed for education sector. It looks at five
dimensions namely physical conditions, human resources, institutional issues, external
relationships, and natural conditions, with each dimension characterized by three param-
eters and five variables. Findings from this study provide important insights into enhancing
resilience of the education system in Thua Thien Hue at the provincial, local, and school
levels. By giving the overall resilience situation, it can help policy-makers and practitio-
ners in developing an effective plan to increase the level of educational resilience. In
addition, it provides the School Management Board with a means to assess the school’s
resilience level and set out priorities that need to be focused on with regard to the
improvement of school safety and disaster risk reduction education.
Keywords Climate disaster � Resilience � Disaster risk reduction � Education � School
1 Introduction
Extensive damages caused by climatic disasters affect every sector of society and set back
socio-economic development all over the world, especially in developing countries. Nine
out of ten natural disasters around the world have been a result of extreme weather and
T. M. T. Tong (&) � R. Shaw � Y. TakeuchiGraduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Yoshida Honmachi, Sakyo-ku,Kyoto 606-8501, Japane-mail: [email protected]
R. Shawe-mail: [email protected]
Y. Takeuchie-mail: [email protected]
123
Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709DOI 10.1007/s11069-012-0178-5
climate events in the last 50 years (WMO 2009). In recent years, there has been growing
evidence of severe damages from climatic disasters on the education sector in terms of
student lives and school collapse. In 2008, Myanmar was struck by Cyclone Nargis which
resulted in a loss of more than 140,000 lives and damages worth billions of dollars. It was
reported that more than 4,000 schools were destroyed and about 600,000 children were
affected (UNICEF 2009). The destroyed school buildings and damaged facilities and
equipment are among those which limit children’s access to education. Following a
disaster, students can be out of school for weeks, months, or even years. Thus, the edu-
cation sector is strongly affected not only during but also on the aftermath of a disaster due
to educational discontinuity and recovery.
Under the Hyogo framework for action (HFA), education is identified as key to mitigate
the impact of natural disasters. In particular, the concept of disaster risk reduction (DRR)
using knowledge, innovation, and education to build a culture of safety and increase
resilience has been highlighted (UN/ISDR 2005b). DRR education plays a crucial role in
many developing countries, where school education is often underdeveloped, thus limiting
children’s capacity to withstand natural hazards (Petal 2009). The importance of DRR
education has been emphasized to achieve sustainability within community (UN/ISDR
2006a).
The education sector is one of the most affected sectors by climatic disasters in Vietnam
(MoET Vietnam 2011). The impacts of flood in communities in Central Vietnam go
beyond damages to buildings and infrastructures. It also impacts livelihoods, health, and
education (Shaw 2006). Recently, many initiatives have been implemented to promote
DRR education in Vietnam. The National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management up to
2020 has a component on integrating DRR into school curriculum (GoV 2007). In its effort
to increase education and raise public awareness of climate change, the Government tasked
the Ministry of Education and Training (MoET) with developing climate change education
and training programs at all levels for 2009–2015. Toward this goal, the MoET has
developed an Action Plan on Response to Climate Change and a project to mainstream
climate change response into educational programs for 2011–2015 (MoET Vietnam 2011).
However, current level of DRR education is still inadequate, only a few pilot projects in
high-risk areas have introduced DRR education into schools. The main reasons for this are
limited human resource and facility capacity. In addition, there is a lack of awareness on
the importance of DRR education as well as safer schools among the provincial and
national policy-makers and stakeholders.
Realizing the crucial role of DRR education, there is a need to focus on implementation
of DRR education in terms of safer schools, enhancement of resilience capacity, and
reduction of losses from disasters. As the inherent attribute of education lies in the inter-
relation from management level of policy-makers and school managers to practice level of
students and communities, it is important to develop a comprehensive approach to pro-
moting DRR education at both policy and school levels. Besides, when considering DRR
education, integration of DRR into education curricula only is not enough to bring about
meaningful risk reduction. It should also include related issues such as structural and non-
structural safety, legislative basis, management mechanism, qualified human resources,
sufficient funding, strong collaboration, proper warning system, and risk assessment,
among others. In this regard, this study focuses on the multi-dimensions of DRR education
including physical conditions, human resources, institutional issues, external relationships,
and natural conditions. It attempts to measure the level of climatic disaster resilience of
schools using a set of indicators, which is developed mainly based on climate disaster
indexes and the 16 tasks of HFA designed for the education sector (Gwee et al. 2011).
686 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709
123
In this paper, the method to develop a tool for measuring the level of educational disaster
resilience is discussed and the approach to applying it to the education system of Central
Vietnam is demonstrated. Data collected from this tool are used to map the position of
schools individually and of the education system in the level of climate disaster resilience.
Finally, findings from this study provide information for educators and policy-makers to
develop an effective plan to raise awareness and strengthen capacity of stakeholders to
respond to disasters.
2 Concept of disaster resilience applied to the education sector
The concept of resilience was first introduced in ecology to describe the persistence of
natural systems in the face of changes (Holling 1973). It was then applied to social studies
in order to describe the behavioral response of communities, institutions, and economies to
hazardous events (Timmerman et al. 1982). The link between social resilience and eco-
logical resilience was also investigated in Adger’s studies (Adger 1997, 2000). Handmer
and Dovers (1996) develop the term institutional resilience and provide a framework for
considering the rigidity and inadequacy of present institutional responses to global envi-
ronmental change. The term of educational resilience is defined by Bernard (1991) as a set
of qualities or protective mechanisms that give rise to successful adaptation despite the
presence of high-risk factors during the course of development. It is also described as a
dynamic process that occurs within a context and is the result of the person’s interaction
with his or her environment (Rutter 1995). According to Cefai (2008), most studies on
educational resilience have mainly concentrated on the academic achievement of children
coming from adverse environments. However, in this study, educational resilience is
considered as strategies and actions to strengthen educational capacities in order to min-
imize losses from natural hazards.
According to Mileti (1999) (as cited in Cutter et al. 2010, p 1), resilience is the ability of
a community to recover by means of its own resources. In addition, Twigg (2007) also
pointed out the characteristics of a system or community resilience as capacity to absorb
stress through resistance or adaptation; capacity to manage or maintain certain basic
functions and structures during disastrous events; and capacity to recover or ‘‘bounce
back’’ after an event. Specifically, disaster resilience is characterized by three main
properties, namely (1) the speed of recovery at which a system can recover after disaster,
(2) the magnitude of an event relative to a threshold that can be absorbed before a system
changes its structure by changing the processes and variables that control it, and (3) the
capacity to learn from and to create new things from disaster, and to transform. For this
reason, it may be helpful to think of educational resilience as efforts of education system to
absorb, manage, and recover from impacts of disasters using its own resources. DRR
education therefore can be referred to as the application of DRR measures in the education
sector toward achieving resilience.
With regard to the interaction between DRR education and community resilience, Petal
(2008) suggests that the goal of developing ‘‘disaster-resilient communities is widely
understood to depend on the success of DRR education’’. Additionally, Paton (2005)
argues that DRR education should be integrated with community development initiatives
to increase resilience, facilitate self-help capacities so as to reduce reliance on external
response and recovery resources. Recently, significant efforts on DRR education have been
implemented in order to build educational resilience under the three umbrellas of ESD,
EFA (Education for All), and HFA. The campaign ‘‘Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at
Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709 687
123
School’’ in 2006–2007 reaffirms the Priority 3 of the HFA on use knowledge, innovation,
and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels (UN/ISDR 2006b).
Responding to this campaign, the Ahmedabad Action Agenda for School Safety was
adopted in 2007 which aims to achieve ‘‘Zero Mortality of Children in School from
Preventable disasters by the year 2015’’ (Ahmedabad Action Agenda for School Safety
2007). In the same year in October, the Bangkok Action Agenda was established which
prioritized integration of DRR into school education, strengthening disaster education for
community resilience, making school safer, and empowering children for DRR (Bangkok
Action Agenda 2007). In 2008, the International Conference on School Safety held in
Islamabad issued the Islamabad Declaration on School Safety which tries to enhance
disaster resilience at schools (Islamabad Declaration on School Safety 2008). Furthermore,
examples of the application of the five priorities of HFA can be seen through Myanmar’s
Ministry of Education initiative undertaken together with UNESCO in developing the
Myanmar Education Recovery Programme Initiative which seeks to enhance resilience in
the education sector (UNESCO 2010). Also, in the study on integrating DRR in the
education sector in Yunlin County, Gwee et al. (2011) propose 16 tasks of HFA relevant
for the education sector in terms of enhancing educational resilience and reducing losses
from disasters.
3 Methodology
This section discusses the methodology used to develop a set of indicators and the scoring
process. In the DRR field, there is a consensus that resilience is a multifaceted concept
which includes elements on social, economic, institutional, infrastructural, ecological, and
community dimensions (Cutter et al. 2010). Using a set of indicators to measure climate
resilience, Sivell et al. (2008) propose three aspects of sustainability: social, economic, and
natural/environmental. Joerin and Shaw (2010) suggest five dimensions namely physical,
social, economic, institutional, and natural which are important in assessing climate
disaster resilience. Another set of indicators developed recently to measure baseline
conditions leading to disaster resilience within communities also focuses on the 5 com-
ponents of social, economic, institutional, infrastructure resilience, and community capital
(Cutter et al. 2010). In addition, there are many initiatives that are implemented as
responses to the UN Decade of ESD’s (2005) call to integrate the principles, values, and
practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education and learning to address
the social, economic, cultural, and environmental problems of the first twenty-first century.
Adapting the 16 tasks of HFA for the education sector developed by Gwee et al. (2011),
this study defines the five dimensions on the measurement of climate disaster resilience of
schools based on the local context of Central Vietnam including physical conditions,
human resources, institutional issues, external relationships, and natural conditions.
Because of the unique characteristic of the public education system as being a non-profit
entity, economic issues are excluded.
The second step in this method is selection of variables that are representative of the
general conditions influencing resilience and are compatible with the local context of the
education system in Central Vietnam. As mentioned in several international and national
agendas, frameworks, conferences, as well as UN programs, DRR education is a multi-
faceted issue which encompasses far more than school curriculum but school safety, risk
assessment, availability of human resources, collaboration, and network among stake-
holders, etc. Therefore, in this part, the physical conditions, human resources, and external
688 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709
123
relationships are generalized for other areas while the institutional issues and natural
conditions are specific to Central Vietnam. The institutional issue in this study is embedded
within school context, thus it reflexes how school manages itself in the improvement of
disaster resilience under the local context of culture, history, and development. Also, the
natural conditions are developed along with the natural conditions in Central Vietnam,
which is prone to disasters such as flood, typhoon, heat waves, sea intrusion, and drought.
Table 1 shows the set of indicators including the five dimensions of human resources,
institutional issues, external relationships, and natural conditions, and each of them is
further explained by 3 parameters and 15 variables (Table 1).
3.1 Justification of parameters and variables
3.1.1 Physical conditions
The School building provides an overall structural assessment in terms of the regular checks
on school buildings, application of safety building code, existence of emergency exit doors,
and quality of evacuation place. There is a growing awareness on the importance of school
design due to huge negative impacts on education caused by the malfunction of school
buildings’ structure and facilities during a disaster. The DRR Begins at Schools Campaign
implemented by UN/ISDR in 2006–2007 emphasizes on promoting safe construction of
school buildings. Accordingly, the Coalition for Global School Safety and Disaster Pre-
vention Education (COGSS) takes disaster-resistant school infrastructure as one among four
main areas to focus on (COGSS and DPE 2008). Furthermore, school building safety is one
of the first priorities clarified in the Children’s Charter where children prioritize education,
want their schools to be safe places, and do not want their education to be interrupted after
disasters (UN/ISDR 2011). As mentioned in the Guidance notes on safer school con-
struction, the use of the school will be affected if a school is built above flood elevation, yet
access routes are inundated. Evacuation routes are, thus, equally important to ensure people
are not trapped in school buildings (INEE and GFDRR 2009). In addition, previous
disaster’s damage to infrastructure is assessed to understand the current level of damage and
is linked to their capacity to sustain and recover from future disasters.
The Facilities and equipment tests the physical conditions of non-structural infra-
structure. The importance of risk assessment and risk identification in raising awareness
and enhancing knowledge based on the local context has been highlighted in the Priority 2
of HFA (UN/ISDR 2005b). Carrying out regular check on facilities and equipment is very
important for teachers and students to understand their school’s situation and potential risk
toward a disaster. Similarly, the provision of emergency supplies as well as eco-equipment
system is highlighted. This parameter also examines the previous damage to school
facilities and equipment and the speed of recovery process which are calculated by the time
required to restore a school system to pre-disaster level of functionality.
The Hygienic and environmental conditions of school measures the school’s awareness
on environmental problems through the environmental protection campaign held in school.
Petal (2009) mentions that the mission of education about disaster is to convey and
understand the natural and environmental conditions as well as the human action and
inaction that lead to disaster. Besides, it is necessary to properly check and arrange for
hazardous materials before a disaster occurs in order to enhance safety and minimize
economic losses during an event. Moreover, the hygienic conditions in school with respect
to food safety, garbage collection, and recycle system are assessed, as these will pose a
greater threat to student health if not treated well before and after a disaster.
Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709 689
123
Table 1 Parameters and variables used to measure disaster resilience of schools
Dimension Parameter Variables
Physicalconditions
School buildings Regular check on school buildings
Safety building codes
Emergency exit door
Evacuation shelter
Damage of infrastructure by disaster
Facilities and equipment Regular check on facilities and equipment
Damage of facilities and equipment by disaster
Emergency supplies (emergency bag, storagefood, water…)
Renovation/repair damaged facilities andequipment
Eco-facilities/equipment system
Hygienic and environmentalconditions of school
Environmental protection campaign
Regular check on hazardous materials
Food safety conditions
Collected garbage
Recycle system
Humanresources
Teachers and staff Affected by disaster
Knowledge about disaster
Disaster training program for teachers and staff
Participation in disaster program
Sharing of disaster preparedness plan forteachers and staff
Students Affected by disaster
Knowledge about disaster
Disaster training program for students
Participation in disaster program
Sharing of disaster preparedness plan forstudents
Parents/Guardians Parent-Teacher association meeting
Disaster training program for parents
School-home emergency notification
Sharing of disaster preparedness plan forparents
Involvement of parents in disaster activities
Institutionalissues
Planning Incorporation of disaster components intoschool planning
Incorporation of disaster components intoschool regulation
Incorporation of disaster components intoschool syllabus
Preparedness and emergency management plan
Recovery management plan
690 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709
123
Table 1 continued
Dimension Parameter Variables
Management School early warning system
Disaster information
Disaster activities
Disaster groups
Training for disaster groups
Budget Budget allocated for disaster training activities
Budget allocated for disaster preparedness and response
Budget allocated for renovation/repair/rebuilding afterdisaster
Budget allocated for monitoring
Budget allocated for supporting the students who havespecial need
Externalrelationships
Collaboration Meeting with local DoET
Meeting with local people committee
Communication system
Early warning from local government
Collaboration with local government
Relationship of school tocommunity
Location of school in local community
School used as evacuation shelter for local community
Participation of school in disaster activities held bylocal community
Support from local community
School involvement in disaster management plan oflocal community
Mobilizing fund Fund from local government
Fund from parent association
Fund from local community
Fund from other organizations
Shifting budget
Naturalconditions
Severity of natural hazards Floods
Storms (strong winds)
Heat waves
Sea intrusion
Drought (water scarcity)
Frequency of natural hazards Floods
Storms (strong winds)
Heat waves
Sea intrusion
Drought (water scarcity)
Surrounding environment Location of school in high-risk area
Distance to nearest river/stream/sea
Distance to local government office
Distance to police station
Distance to hospital/health center
Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709 691
123
3.1.2 Human resources
This dimension examines the main factors that shape human resources (i.e., teachers and
staff, students and parents/guardians) in school.
The Teachers and staff assesses the personal capacity of teachers with regard to pre-
vious disaster, their knowledge, and their role in responding to disasters. It is necessary for
teachers to have adequate knowledge of disasters to be able to conduct proper disaster
education. Providing teachers, students, and parents/guardians the knowledge on DRR is
therefore a good way to minimize loss in human resources as they can protect themselves
and each other from the impacts of disasters.
The Students identifies critical issues which need to be addressed in order to enhance
effectiveness and efficiency in student learning capacity. It is explained in the Priority 3 of
HFA that in order to build a culture of safety and resilience, there is a need to develop
disaster training programs and enhance dissemination of DRR information to stakeholders
(UN/ISDR 2005b). In terms of formal education, it is widely acknowledged that school
plays an important role in raising awareness among students, teachers, and parents (Shaw
and Kobayashi 2001). Also, high level of participation of students in disaster activities can
create greater resilience in school.
The Parents/Guardians addresses the role of parent participation in disaster activities in
school. The importance of linking school education with family and community education
is increasingly being recognized and currently practiced in some countries through
engagement of students in a more proactive partnership (Shiwaku and Shaw 2008).
According to Vandergrift and Greene (1992), the concept of parental involvement with the
student and the school is essential and can produce great rewards for all concerned. 86 %
of the general public schools believe that support from parents is the most important way to
improve student achievement (Rose et al. 1997). With regard to emergency, the interaction
between schools and parents via school-home emergency notification is a prerequisite to
protect students from the impacts of disasters.
3.1.3 Institutional issues
Implementing the first priority of HFA requires a mechanism to strengthen institutional
issues for DRR. It involves integrating DRR into planning, decentralizing responsibilities,
assessing human and financial needs, and allocating necessary resources (UN/ISDR
2005a). Under a school context, institutional resilience is assessed in terms of disaster
planning, management and allocation of budget for disaster activities.
The Planning is the yardstick that measures achievements of school in responding to
disasters. Schools that incorporate DRR into school planning, regulation, and syllabus and
provide enough information related to disasters for students demonstrate a higher level of
resilience than schools without these characteristics. Similarly, a good preparedness and
recovery management plan will help schools both quickly recovery from disaster and
enhance safety for students, teachers, and staff.
The Management focuses on what school provides for students before disaster in terms
of early warning system, disaster activities, easily understandable information on disaster
risks, and protective measures. As people often learn about disaster indirectly from another
experience, disaster activities such as drawing, telling a story about disaster will build a
culture of sharing information and knowledge transfer, which in turn raise students’
awareness on disasters thereby reducing risks. Furthermore, the creation of a disaster group
and their activities in responding to disasters are highlighted.
692 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709
123
The Budget assesses the financial services in school refer to budget allocated specially
for disaster activities such as disaster training, preparedness, response, and recovery pro-
cess. Many studies using indicator-based approaches limit analysis to generic information
by assuming a vulnerable population that is homogeneous, and neglecting the vulnerable
agents with cognitive abilities to adapt to changes in their environment (Acosta-Michlik
and Rounsevell 2009). To avoid this limitation, this parameter also considers students who
have special needs by way of how much support schools give them when disaster occurs.
3.1.4 External relationships
The Collaboration refers to the cooperation between school, community, and local gov-
ernment, which proves necessary for both pre-disaster prevention and mitigation, and
crucial in post-disaster management. Also, facilitating networking and collaboration among
stakeholders is considered as important factor to ensure sustainable in the education sector
(UNESCO 2005). An important aspect of regular meeting between school, local DoET, and
local community is to bring together school managers and policy-makers at the local level to
assess disaster damage, to learn from last disaster, and plan for future disaster.
The Relationship of school to community identifies the role of community in helping
schools to respond to disasters in a timely manner. The vital role of community in DRR
education has been shown in leading students’ actual actions in case of emergency to
reduce disaster risk (Shiwaku et al. 2007) and facilitating the link between risk perception
and risk reduction behavior (Paton and Johnston 2001). It has been re-emphasized in the
Islamabad Declaration in 2008 which strongly encourages community participation in
school’s activities since the community is the first responder to disaster situation and is a
partner which allows transfer of knowledge and practices (Islamabad Declaration on
School Safety 2008). On the other hand, school plays a central role in the community.
Besides providing basic education, school supports the community in times of emergency
by serving as evacuation center, and has potential to act as knowledge resource centers and
engines of DRR work in the community. Shiwaku and Fernandez (2011) also stress the
importance of linking school education with community education, and engaging students
in more proactive partnership with the neighborhood.
The Mobilizing fund examines the external support from community, local government,
and other organizations to schools in case of disasters. For this, political support in funding
for education after a disaster is highlighted and deemed important to help school quickly
recover and resume back to normal operation. There is a growing evidence that proves
children benefit directly and indirectly from even very small cash transfers (Save the
Children 2008). On the other hand, Sivell et al. (2008) suggests that it is not necessary to
spend a large amount of money; instead, shifting budget or changing how existing funds
are distributed can be very effective in building resilience.
3.1.5 Natural conditions
The Severity of natural hazards rates the level of impacts of climatic disasters on schools.
Since Central Vietnam is more vulnerable to climatic disasters including flood, storm, heat
waves, sea intrusion, and drought (water scarcity) than other kinds of disasters such as
earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, this study focuses mainly on the impacts of these
disasters to the education sector.
The Frequency of natural hazards measures the frequency of climatic disasters in the
local area of school. The reason for testing the magnitude of an event is that different scales
Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709 693
123
of disaster result in different damages to education sector. A devastating disaster, for
example, will destroy school buildings, increase the number of dead and missing, and
cause huge losses in economy and thus increase time for recovery and put more pressure on
educational continuity. Also, depending on the nature of the hazards, the approach of DRR
education should be changed accordingly. Shaw et al. (2004) argue the importance of
earthquake disaster education compared to other types of disaster. They suggested that the
only way to reduce damages caused by an earthquake is effective preparedness while
hydro-meteorological disasters such as floods and typhoons are much related to early
warning and risk communication (Shaw et al. 2011). Besides, in order to develop a
comprehensive policy toward school safety, the governments should consider all locally
relevant hazards and school location as schools often function as evacuation centers in the
time of disaster.
The Surrounding environment examines the school’s surrounding area in terms of the
school location in high-risk area and the distance from school to public service agencies
such as government office, police station, and health center. It is clear that schools located
in hazardous location are prone to rapid and severe disasters and can easily be isolated
during a disaster.
3.2 Data collection and processing
The third step in this method is the use of the selected indicators in formulating a ques-
tionnaire, which covers five dimensions with each dimension consisting of three param-
eters. Furthermore, each of the parameter has five variables to measure the resilience of
schools. A scale of 1–5 is used to weigh each variable, with the score of 1 being the worst
ranked, poor or not available/non-existent, and a score of 5 being the best. After each
variable is scored, it is graded against the other variables within the same parameter. In this
way, the parameters are weighed according to their importance within the school’s context
between 1 (not important) and 3 (very important). This method has been applied in the
research of Joerin and Shaw (2011).
In order to collect data using the questionnaire, the author went to schools to discuss
and explain the indicators and how to fill out the questionnaire with the principal or
teachers who are responsible for disaster activities in school. An explanatory note of the
quantified questions was prepared in order to minimize the gap of understanding among
responders. The questionnaire was also consulted with staff of the MoET and the pro-
vincial and local DoET before being distributed to schools in order to make it compatible
with the local conditions of the education system in Thua Thien Hue Province. In-depth
interview with key informants such as the educators, the provincial policy-makers, the
DoET officers, and focus group discussion with the principals and school staff was
carried out to collect supplemental data for the research. Because this assessment tool is
applied at the school level, results are influenced by the local characteristics of each
school. To supplement information from the questionnaire, the author uses the school
checklist as well as collected data from the local Red Cross, DoET, Department of
Natural Resources and Environment (DoNRE), NGOs, and other organizations in Thua
Thien Hue Province.
To depict resilience levels, both pentagon-shaped graphs and spatial maps were
developed to be able to visually compare resilience levels between regions in Hue City.
This approach is both theoretically consistent and geographically relevant. By using GIS
system to locate schools, it helps in the understanding of the geographical situation of
schools thereby contributing to an accurate level of data collected.
694 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709
123
4 Study in Thua Thien Hue Province
4.1 Overview of Thua Thien Hue Province
Thua Thien Hue Province is one of the most disaster-prone areas in Vietnam. Located in
the North Central province of Viet Nam, Thua Thien Hue Province lies from 16 to 16.80
North latitude, and from 107.8 to 108.20 East longitude. It is situated in a narrow strip of
land with the length of 127 km and the average width of 60 km. The province has a total
area of 5,054 km2 with 126 km of coastline and a population of 1,105,000 people
(TTHPPC 2005). It has all kinds of topography such as forest and mountain, hills and
mounts, coastal plain, lagoon, and sea. Its topography is complicated and strongly parti-
tioned lowering gradually from West to East.
Due to its location in a tropical monsoon area, the average annual temperature is 25 �C
in the plains and in the hills and only 21 �C in the mountains. The lowest average monthly
temperature is in January at 20 �C. The annual precipitation in the province is 3,200 mm
with significant variations. Depending on the year, the annual average precipitation may
reach 2,500–3,500 mm in the plains and 3,000–4,500 mm in the mountains. In some years,
the rainfall may be much higher and reaches to more than 5,000 mm in the mountains
(TTHPPC 2005). The rainy season is from September to December and about 70 % of the
precipitation is accounted for in those months. Rainfall often occurs in short heavy bursts
which causes flooding and erosion (GoV 2004).
Thua Thien Hue Province is divided into 8 districts: A Luoi, Huong Thuy, Huong Tra,
Nam Dong, Phong Dien, Quang Dien, Phu Vang, and Phu Loc. The capital city of Hue is
its own municipality with 150 communes, precincts, and towns.
4.2 Impacts of climatic disaster on the education sector in Thua Thien Hue Province
Its diverse topography makes Thua Thien Hue Province one of the most vulnerable areas in
Vietnam. In recent years, disasters such as floods and storms have devastating impacts in
Thua Thien Hue Province. Almost every area has experienced flooding, which is increasing
in both number and size. Moreover, the number of storms hitting Vietnam is growing each
year, especially in Thua Thien Hue Province. During the 19th and the first half of 20th
century from 1804 to 1945, there were only 38 floods and typhoons in the historical record.
However, between 1975 and 2000, there were 41 disasters consisting of 1 storm, 18 floods,
and 22 storm floods (Do 2000). The flooding event in Central Vietnam in late 1999 has
been recorded as the worst flooding event that the country had experienced in a century.
The flood was caused by a series of storms that brought heavy rain to Central Vietnam in
October and November. There were 926,500 people affected, in which 467 people were
reported dead and missing. It was estimated that the total damage amounted to around 152
million USD (GoV 2005) (Table 2).
According to the annual report of the Provincial People Committee in Thua Thien Hue
Province, the flood in 2010 damaged more than 27,245 houses and about 500 schools
(TTHPPC 2010). Thousands of people have been affected leaving most of them homeless,
with no food or water. 10 people were reported dead or missing, among them 3 children
(CCFSC 2010). As reported by the Hue DoET, about 280,000 students could not go to
school due to the flood. In more disadvantaged areas, the pace of rehabilitating physical
infrastructure to resume teaching and learning activities has been very slow, which neg-
atively affected quality of education.
Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709 695
123
4.3 The education system of Thua Thien Hue Province
The education system in Thua Thien Hue Province is adopted from the national education
system of Vietnam (Fig. 1). According to this education system, there are four school
levels namely preschool, primary, under secondary, and upper secondary education. Pre-
school education caters to children until 6 years old. Primary education consists of 5 years
of schooling for students aged 6–10. Students who successfully complete their primary
education undertake 4 years of lower secondary education. After that students who satis-
factorily complete lower secondary education have several options available to them.
These options include continuing schooling at upper secondary school or professional
secondary school, or undertaking vocational training. Some students may also undertake
non-formal education or commence work.
Table 2 Estimated damage of natural disasters in Thua Thien Hue Province
Dead andmissing
Injury Affectedhousehold
Floodedhouses
Affectedschools
Economic loss(million USD)
Flood 1999 467 94 295,100 193,627 1,207 152
Typhoon Xangsane 2006 8(4 children)
102 12,380 48,244 429 182
Flood 2007 (16/10–5/11) 18 31 7,008 60,737 306 47
Flood 2007 (10–12/11) 1 4 83,378 83,396 250
Flood 2010 10(3 children)
27,245 7,200 500
Fig. 1 National education system in Vietnam
696 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709
123
There are different types of institutions offering primary and secondary education:
primary school, lower secondary school, upper secondary school, and multi-level general
school, which can be further divided into (1) combined primary and lower secondary
school, (2) combined lower and upper secondary school, and (3) combined primary, lower,
and upper secondary school. Institutions offering education at the upper secondary level
are under the authority of the provincial DoET, whereas the rest falls under the district-
level DoET (UNESCO 2007).
The school year usually falls on 5 September to 30 May. In recent years, however, many
schools have begun earlier in August so that they can manage the school schedule in case
of storms and floods.
The Thua Thien Hue Province has made education compulsory at the level of primary
school since 2002. According to the DoET of Thua Thien Hue Province in 2008, there are
380 schools, of which 232 are primary schools, 105 lower secondary schools, 31 upper
secondary schools, 4 primary and lower secondary schools, and 8 lower and upper sec-
ondary schools (Table 3). Provincial literature rate is 98.6 % and the total number of
teachers is 4,550.
There are 36 primary schools belonging to 26 wards in Hue City and no school located
in An Tay Ward because it is a newly established ward (Fig. 2). This study initially focuses
on primary students who are considered as effective agents in risk communication espe-
cially to families and communities. Nonetheless, they often have limited knowledge and
skill to protect themselves from disasters.
5 Results and discussion
The results of the analysis are presented in two ways, first by graphs of resilience scores of
all 36 primary schools and second by maps of resilience scores grouped by 26 wards in
Hue City. The graphs point out which factors should be focused on to enhance resilience of
school and of the education system as a whole, while the spatial analysis shows the
different levels of resilience among various regions.
In order to make the variation between resilience score more visible, the score is
categorized into five levels, from 1 to 5 (lowest to highest). The score of each ward is
averaged by score of schools within its area (Table 4).
Table 3 Number of primary,lower secondary, and upper sec-ondary public schools in ThuaThien Hue Province
Source DoET of Thua Thien HueProvince, 2011
Primaryschools
Lower secondaryschools
Upper secondaryschools
Hue City 36 24 10
Huong Thuy 17 11 3
Huong Tra 31 13 3
Phu Vang 37 19 4
Phu Loc 28 17 4
Quang Dien 23 11 2
Phong Dien 27 14 3
Nam Dong 12 4 3
A Luoi 18 8 3
Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709 697
123
First, graphs are used to present the results assessing the resilience level of primary
education system of Hue City in different ways through: comparative assessment of 36
primary schools (Fig. 3), analysis of primary education system (Fig. 4), and analysis of
each school (Fig. 6).
As indicated in the Fig. 5, the disaster resilience score of primary schools in Hue City
varies from 2.60 to 4.29 (higher score mean higher resilience and vice versa). Figure 6
shows the overall score of the primary educational resilience in five dimensions. The
physical dimension achieves the highest score at 3.69 while the natural resilience obtains
the lowest resilience at 2.60. In the following, the parameters are examined to explain the
factors that contributed to the results.
The results from spatial analysis of resilience scores illustrate an elevation bias. Thus,
An Cuu (1), Phuoc Vinh (15), Truong An (24) show comparatively high scores of resil-
ience. The notable exception to this pattern is Phu Cat which also shows high levels of
resilience, although it belongs to a low elevation area. Also, Thuy Xuan (22), though
located in high elevation area, has a low resilience score due to its weakness in physical,
institutional, and external relationships. This evidence proves that it is not enough for a
school to be located in a safe area to have strong disaster resilience level. Climate disaster
resilience of school can be achieved in other ways by improving the conditions of human
resource, physical, institutional, and external relationships.
In contrast, most schools that are located in low elevation areas typically demonstrate
moderate to low levels of resilience. This pattern is not only evident across the entire Hue
City, but is also present within each ward individually. For example, there are two schools
in Tay Loc Ward, Tay Loc, and Nguyen Trai, with scores of 3.41 and 2.96, respectively
(Table 4).
Fig. 2 Location of primary schools overlaid on the inundation map of the 1999 flood in Hue City
698 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709
123
5.1 Physical conditions
Among the five dimensions, the physical parameter scored highest, of which scores of
school buildings and hygienic conditions parameter are high while that of the facilities and
equipment parameter are low (Fig. 4). According to the Hue DoET, the school infrastructure
in Hue City has been upgraded and improved recently. About 10 schools were newly built
Table 4 The disaster resiliencescore of 36 primary schools andof 26 wards in Hue City
No Schools CDRIscore
Wards Ward’sscore
1 Ngu Binh 3.71 An Cuu (1) 4.00
2 An Cuu 4.29
3 Ly Thuong Kiet 3.81 Phu Hoi (2) 3.81
4 Phu Cat 3.72 Phu Cat (3) 3.72
5 Phuoc Vinh 3.71 Phuoc Vinh (4) 3.71
6 Truong An 3.56 Truong An (5) 3.56
7 Le Loi 3.72 Phu Nhuan (6) 3.52
8 Vinh Loi 3.52
9 Le Quy Don 3.31
10 Phu Binh 3.47 Phu Binh (7) 3.47
11 Phuong Duc 3.38 Phuong Duc (8) 3.38
12 Xuan Phu 3.34 Xuan Phu (9) 3.34
13 Vinh Ninh 3.32 Vinh Ninh (10) 3.32
14 Vy Da 3.52 Vy Da (11) 3.30
15 Phu Luu 3.09
16 Thuan Hoa 3.28 Thuan Hoa (12) 3.28
17 Thuy Bieu 3.22 Thuy Bieu (13) 3.22
18 Trieu Son Tay 3.46 An Hoa (14) 3.19
19 An Hoa 2.91
20 Tay Loc 3.41 Tay Loc (15) 3.18
21 Nguyen Trai 2.96
22 Phu Hoa 2.83 Phu Hoa (16) 3.17
23 Thanh Long 3.50
24 Phu Hau 3.13 Phu Hau (17) 3.13
25 So 1 Kim Long 2.81 Kim Long (18) 3.05
26 So 2 Kim Long 3.30
27 Ngo Kha 3.04 Phu Hiep (19) 3.04
28 Tran Quoc Toan 3.17 Thuan Thanh (20) 2.99
29 Thuan Thanh 2.80
30 Thuan Loc 2.97 Thuan Loc (21) 2.97
31 So 1 An Dong 3.14 An Dong (22) 2.96
32 So 2 An Dong 2.78
33 Huong So 2.86 Huong So (23) 2.86
34 Huong Long 2.91 Huong Long (24) 2.91
35 Phu Thuan 2.82 Phu Thuan (25) 2.82
36 Thuy Xuan 2.60 Thuy Xuan (26) 2.60
Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709 699
123
Fig. 4 Overall disaster resilience score of 36 primary schools
Fig. 3 Disaster resilience score of 36 primary schools
700 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709
123
after historical flood in 1999. In addition, the number of schools that meet the national
standards is increasing, up to more than 30 % in 2010. Currently, about 25 % of schools in
Hue have three stories, 47 % of schools have two 2 stories, and 28 % of schools has one story.
Only 5 % of schools were built without emergency exit door and evacuation shelter.
Every year, checking of school buildings especially of educational facilities and
equipment is compulsory for all schools and is carried out at the beginning of the school
Fig. 5 Spatial analysis of disaster resilience values of primary school system in Hue City, Thua Thien HueProvince. a Overall disaster resilience score. b Physical conditions. c Human resources. d Institutionalissues. e External relationships. f Natural conditions.
Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709 701
123
year. In some cases, schools will be requested by the DoET to carry out investigation for
school buildings before the flood season to ensure safety and minimize economic losses.
However, facilities and equipment for primary schools are insufficient in quantity, in the
first place. After a disaster, there are not more than 25 % of damaged facilities and
equipment can be repaired or renovated. This causes education to be interrupted in most
primary schools in Hue City.
Schools with high physical scores are clustered in the high elevation south areas of Hue
City (Fig. 5b). However, there is an exception in the cases of Huong So, An Hoa, and
Fig. 6 The highest resilience score—An Cuu school (a) and lowest resilience score—Thuy Xuan school (b)
702 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709
123
Huong Long schools, which show high physical scores, though located in low elevation
areas. It is because these schools are newly built in 2007.
5.2 Human resources
The average resilience score of human resource is comparatively high among the five
dimensions. This is due to the improved education quality as indicated by the high passing
rate of students and low dropout rate of students. The rate of students that pass primary
education to proceed to lower secondary education reaches 100 % in most schools in the
school year 2009–2010. In addition, the ratio of teacher/students is relative high, around
1:21 and teachers/class is around 1.62. According to the MoET (2011), the percentage of
qualified teachers in Central Vietnam is very high, at 92 %, just lower than the highest rate
of 95 % in the Red river delta. This high human resource score provides a good oppor-
tunity for integrating DRR into the curriculum of primary education. Among three factors
that contribute to human resource resilience, guardians have the least contribution with the
score of 0.68. This is partially a result of a lack of training program that is designed for
guardians and the low involvement of guardians in disaster activities of schools.
The spatial distribution of human resource resilience reflects the difference between
central and peripheral regions (Fig. 5c). The high resilience score within central areas is
primarily a result of high concentration of qualified teachers as well as high-income
households, who have more favorable conditions to actively be involved and make larger
contributions in school activities.
With regard to the number of teachers, staff, and students that meet the basic disaster
training standard, it is found that 55 % of schools have more than 75 % of teachers, staff,
and students who are equipped with proper knowledge and awareness on risks and impacts
of disasters. In 2001, the Vietnam Red Cross Society (VNRC) has implemented a pro-
gramme called ‘‘Introducing Disaster Preparedness in Primary Schools’’ aimed at reducing
disaster risk for school-going children. Following this programme, 100 % of teachers and
students of grade 4 and 5 in primary schools of all 21 of the most disaster-prone provinces
in Vietnam including Thua Thien Hue Province were trained on disaster preparedness.
However, this programme’s activities have not been replicated due to budget constraints.
Finally, a strong connection between school and family is reflected in the average high
score of school-home notification in emergency situations. Accordingly, most schools rank
this issue as important, nearly 4 in the scale from 1 to 5.
5.3 Institutional issues
In this study, the institutional dimension mainly focuses on the internal management of
each school rather than the general policy framework of sub-DoET. Although all primary
schools in Hue City are under the management of sub-DoET, each school is responsible to
develop their own school planning, regulation, syllabus as well as budget allocation pur-
suant to the directions of the DoET. Therefore, the institutional score displays different
distribution of resilience levels among regions (Fig. 5d). The schools which have high
human resilience scores tend to have high level of institutional score such as An Cuu,
Truong An, Phuoc Vinh, and Phu Hoi. This is because of the high number of trained
teachers as well as high awareness of School Management Board on the importance of
disaster preparedness and recovery plan in minimizing losses from disasters.
The average institutional score is quite high among the five dimensions. This is because
100 % of primary schools have their own Board of Flood and Storm Control led by the
Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709 703
123
school principal. This Board is responsible for developing a flood and storm control plan at
the beginning of the school year. In this plan, the roles of all stakeholders are clearly
defined. This plan is then shared among teachers and staff, students, and guardians. Many
schools incorporate disaster components into their general regulation. In most cases, it is
just to make arrangement for educational facilities prior to a disaster. According to the
primary education system of Vietnam, schools that meet all the requirements of teaching
capacity can develop optional education programs pursuant to the regulations of the DoET
aside from the main curriculum. Following this system, most primary schools in Hue City
have disaster components integrated into some subjects such as Vietnamese, Nature, and
Society (for grade 1, 2, and 3), and Geography and Science (for grade 4 and 5) to foster
students’ capacity in disaster preparedness.
The score of the budget parameter is lowest among the three parameters of institutional
issues. For primary schools, the school fee is free and the annual finance budget is provided
by the DoET depending on the size of school and the number of teachers, students, and
classes. The School Management Board will then decide how many percentage of the
budget can be allocated to disaster management. However, because more than 70 % of
budget is allocated for salary of teachers and staff, most primary schools find it very
difficult to spend more on disaster activities.
5.4 External relationships
The spatial distribution of external relationships’ dimension shows a slight eastern bias. A
large percentage of schools within Phuoc Vinh, Vy Da, Phu Binh, Phu Cat, and An Cuu
areas show high levels of external relationship resilience (Fig. 5e). However, the external
relationships’ scores vary largely among different wards because there is no consistent
norm or regulation on the collaboration between schools and local government, commu-
nities, and other organizations. Also, within one ward, there is a mixed pattern of very high
resilience and very low resilience. Take An Cuu ward for example, whose external rela-
tionships’ score is composed of a very high score of An Cuu school (4.50) and very low
score of Ngu Binh school (2.53).
The external relationships’ score result also illustrates a shortage of budget for disaster
activities. It is found that there is a limitation in mobilizing fund from external sources such
as local government, communities, and other organizations. After a disaster, the sub-DoET
tries to find donors to support schools based on the damage level reported from schools.
The sub-DoET itself does not have fund for recovery of schools after a disaster. Only in
cases where school building collapse or equipment and facilities are heavily damaged will
the school receive funding and support from the provincial DoET, Red Cross, and local
government. It is the responsibility of schools themselves to mobilize fund from the Parent
Association, communities, and other organizations. However, mobilizing fund from parent
association, communities, and other organizations is often limited because 80 % of the
people in Hue City belong to the medium income bracket, all suffering from the burden of
daily expenditures. Furthermore, the number of poor households is around 4.8 and 7.5 % of
households have monthly income below 17 USD.
5.4.1 Natural conditions
The natural dimension is recorded lowest among the five dimensions due to the low score
in both severity and frequency of natural hazards. As mentioned earlier, Hue City is
704 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709
123
considered to be among the most vulnerable to disasters in Vietnam, particularly to floods
and storms. With a high river network density of 0.6 km/km2, more than 80 % of primary
schools in Hue City are located within 2 km2 from rivers. Moreover, due to high density of
population in low elevation areas compared to high elevation areas in Hue City, the
number of schools in the low elevation areas is also high. It is notable that the score of
surrounding environment of schools is high since most schools are located within 5 km of
the local people committee office, police station, or health center.
The average natural scores among 26 wards do not diverge significantly (Fig. 5f).
However, the natural scores of schools vary considerably within each ward, for example,
Kim Long 1 and 2 are both located in Kim Long ward but the natural scores are 2.11 and 3.18,
respectively. It is because Kim Long 2 was newly constructed in 2000 in a higher elevation
area or safer area, while Kim Long 1 was built in 1976, before the historical 1999 flood.
In examining each school’s resilience scores, some interesting findings are found. Phuoc
Vinh was ranked in the top five resilience while the natural resilience is very low at 2.20,
rated at 23 out of 36 schools. Whereas Thuy Xuan has the lowest overall disaster resilience
score, but the natural resilience is high at 2.18, rated at 14 out of 36 schools. Given this, it
is important to recognize that schools located in hazardous areas should focus strongly on
physical conditions, human resource, and institutional management to enhance resilience
and make school safer. This evidence, in turn, can be proven true through the analysis of
the lowest and highest resilience scores (Fig. 6), which demonstrate clearly the proportion
of the overall and the sub-component scores of physical, institutional, and external rela-
tionships. For instance, An Cuu School, which ranks highest in terms of overall disaster
resilience (4.29), is also rated highest in physical conditions (4.56), institutional (4.52), and
external relationships (4.50). In contrast, Thuy Xuan has the lowest overall disaster
resilience score (2.60) which is a product of lowest scores in physical (2.72), institutional
(3.01), and external relationships (2.38).
6 Conclusions
This study attempts to provide an effective tool at both policy and school levels by looking
at climate disaster resilience of schools from five dimensions namely physical conditions,
human resources, institutional issues, external relationships, and natural conditions.
Analysis of the results provides an understanding of the parameters to focus on which can
lead to enhancement of climate disaster resilience in schools. It also illustrates the
advantages and challenges in building resilience for the education system. Lastly, this tool
is useful in determining the priorities in the recovery process following disasters as it
identifies which parts of the school are most vulnerable to disaster, the level of damages,
and which resources are important to help school bounce back quickly to its origin state.
The advantageous condition of Hue City as found in this study (i.e., low natural
resilience but high in level of educational disaster resilience) indicates a potential for
integration of DRR into curriculum. Most primary schools in Hue City have changed its
teaching and learning methods resulting to students who are no longer studious and are
passively attentive in class. They can be encouraged to take part in many activities outside
of class, which will provide a good opportunity for DRR integration as extra-curriculum
without overburdening school students. However, in order to effectively integrate DRR
education, it is important to incorporate both theory and practice, hence the program should
develop students’ creativeness and proactiveness, instruct them to use their knowledge for
practical purposes, and initiate the students’ desire and interests in studying.
Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709 705
123
Study results found both constraints and opportunities to promoting DRR in the edu-
cation sector. One constraint is financial management, especially budget allocated for
disaster management, which can help disaster planners and decision makers in allocating
money for contingency planning. On the other hand, an opportunity would be to improve
the design of school buildings as well as utilization of educational facilities and equipment
in terms of ensuring school safety during and after an event. In addition, although the
number of trained teachers and students is quite high, many are not equipped with basic
knowledge which hinders them to take action when disaster occurs. Because of the high
turnover of primary education human resource, which is characteristically being replaced
every 5 years, it becomes a challenge to transfer knowledge from one generation to
another. Hence, there is a need for annual disaster training programs to improve practical
skills in disaster response and to sustain human resources for educational system with
regard to DRR and enhancing resilience.
The overall result proves that the current disaster resilience level of the primary edu-
cational system in Hue City is quite high. However, the gap in resilience capacities
between regions and even between schools within a region can be observed clearly. By
identifying the different factors that affect disaster resilience in the primary education in
Hue City, this study can help the Hue DoET design a better plan to minimize this gap and
strengthen educational capacity to respond to climate change. In addition, it will allow the
School Management Board to assess itself in the level of disaster resilience along with
socio-economic and environmental factors. With regard to awareness raising of educa-
tional stakeholders on DRR education, this study can advance educators’ understanding of
the multi-dimensional nature of resilience and its vital role in reducing disaster risk for the
education sector.
Within the context of a changing climate, it is difficult to find an approach that covers
all changeable factors. Therefore, the method used in this study is not an absolute measure,
but is a relative measure particular to school in a local community with specific conditions.
In addition, this approach should be updated according to the change in socio-economic
and environmental conditions overtime.
Although education is a cultural issue and is very much rooted in the local context,
there are still basic principles of education which are universal and can be applied to
different countries with possible customization. Accordingly, the set of resilience indi-
cators in this study although developed along with the specific conditions of the education
system in Central Vietnam can be utilized by modifying and making it compatible with
other regions, in particular with developing countries in Asia. The education system in
Asian countries shares the same characteristics, where education is a national product and
all decisions are made at the national level. Furthermore, DRR education ranks among the
priorities in the Asia–Pacific such that in 2008, the Regional Task Force on Education and
School Safety was established aiming to spearhead DRR education throughout the Asia
and Pacific region. There is a high level of commitment in the Asia–Pacific region to
accelerate the multifaceted process of promoting DRR education in order to build a
culture of safety and resilience. In addition, with the integration of the Regional Network
for Education and School Safety in the Asia–Pacific as part of Global Education Listserv,
it can be expected that more experiences, opinions, and materials on DRR education will
continue to be shared and exchanged both within the region and beyond its boundaries
(UN/ISDR 2009).
The next step for this study is to explore the replication of this method in other vul-
nerable regions. It would allow for the understanding of how overall disaster resilience
scores as measured by this method change according to variations in socio-economic and
706 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709
123
environmental conditions. Furthermore, this analysis can be used to determine the changes
in level of school resilience based on climate change scenarios developed for the local area
where the school is located.
Acknowledgments The author acknowledges funding from a research scholarship of the Japan Ministry ofEducation, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and support from the Kyoto University GlobalCOE Program (GCOE-ARS). The kind assistance and cooperation of Hue Department of Education andTraining (DoET) and school leaders are greatly appreciated.
References
Acosta-Michlik L, Rounsevell M (2009) An agent-based framework for assessing vulnerability futures. In:Patt AG, Schroter D, Klein RJT, de-la-Vega-Leinert AC (eds) Assessing vulnerability to globalenvironmental change: making information useful for adaptation policy and decision-making. Earth-scan, London, pp 147–171
Adger WN (1997) Sustainability and social resilience in coastal. CSERGE Working Paper Series 97-23.Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia,United Kingdom
Adger WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geogr 24(3):347–364Ahmedabad Action Agenda for School Safety (2007) Paper presented at the international conference on
school safety, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India, 18–20 Jan 2007Bangkok Action Agenda (2007) Paper presented at the Asia Pacific regional workshop on school education
and disaster risk reduction, Bangkok, Thailand, 8–10 Oct 2007Bernard B (1991) Fostering resilience in kids: protective factors in the family, school and community.
Western Centre Drug-Free Schools and Communities, Portland, Oregan. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED335781.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2011
CCFSC (2010) Central Committee for flood and storm control of Vietnam. http://www.ccfsc.gov.vn/KW6F2B34/Disaster-Database.aspx. Accessed 20 Mar 2011
Cefai C (2008) Promoting resilience in the classroom: a guide to developing pupils’ emotional and cognitiveskills. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London, p 21
COGSS and DPE (2008) Governance framework. Coalition for Global School Safety and Disaster Pre-vention Education
Cutter SL, Burton CG, Emrich CT (2010) Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline condi-tions. J Homel Secur Emerg Manage 7(1):1–22
Do B (2000) Floods and storms in Central Viet Nam in 19th and 20th centuries (in Vietnamese). Da NangPublishing House, Danang, Vietnam
GoV (2004) Statistic yearbook (in Vietnamese). Government of Vietnam, HanoiGoV (2005) National report on disaster reduction in Viet Nam. In: World conference on disaster reduction,
Kobe, Hyogo, JapanGoV (2007) The national strategy for natural disaster prevention, response and mitigation to 2020. Gov-
ernment of Vietnam, HanoiGwee Q, Takeuchi Y, Wen JC, Shaw R (2011) Disaster education system in Yunlin County, Taiwan. Asian J
Environ Disaster Manag 3(2):189–203Handmer JW, Dovers SR (1996) A typology of resilience: rethinking institutions for sustainable develop-
ment. Ind Environ Crisis Q 9(4):482–511Holling C (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4(1):1–23INEE and GFDRR (2009) Guidance notes on safer school construction. Inter-Agency Network for Edu-
cation in Emergencies and Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and RecoveryIslamabad Declaration on School Safety (2008) Paper presented at the international conference on school
safety Islamabad, Pakistan, 14–16 May 2008Joerin J, Shaw R (2010) Climate change adaptation and urban risk management. In: Shaw R, Pulhin JM,
Pereira JJ (eds) Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction: issues and challenges, vol 4.Emerald Group Publishing Limited, UK, pp 195–215
Joerin J, Shaw R (2011) Mapping climate and disaster resilience in cities. In: Shaw R, Sharma A (eds)Climate and disaster resilience in cities, vol 6. Community, environment and disaster risk management.Emerald Group Publishing Limited, UK, pp 47–61
Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709 707
123
Paton D (2005) Community resilience: integrating hazard management and community engagement. In:Paper presented at the international conference on engaging communities, Brisbane, 14–17 Aug 2005
Paton D, Johnston D (2001) Disaster and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness. DisasterPrev Manag 10(4):270–277
Petal M (2008) Concept note: formal and informal education for disaster risk reduction. http://www.riskred.org/activities/ddredislamabad.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2011
Petal M (2009) Education in disaster risk reduction. In: Shaw R, Krishnamurthy RR (eds) Disaster man-agement: global challenges and local solutions. Universities Press, India, pp 285–301
Rose LC, Gallup AM, Elam SM (1997) The 29th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the public’sattitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan 79(1):41–56
Rutter M (1995) Psychosocial adversity: risk, resilience, and recovery. S Afr J Child Adolesc Psychiatry7(2):75–88
Save the Children (2008) In the face of disaster—climate change and children. International Save theChildren Alliance, London, United Kingdom. http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/In_the_Face_of_Disaster_1.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2011
Shaw R (2006) Critical issues of community based flood mitigation: examples from Bangladesh andVietnam. J Sci Cult Special Issue Flood Disaster Risk Reduct Asia 72(1–2):62–71
Shaw R, Kobayashi M (2001) The role of schools in creating earthquake-safer environment. In: Paperpresented at the OECD workshop, Thessaloniki, Oct 2001
Shaw R, Shiwaku K, Kobayashi H, Kobayashi M (2004) Linking experience, knowledge, perception andearthquake preparedness. Disaster Prev Manag 13(1):39–49
Shaw R, Takeuchi Y, Shiwaku K (2011) ‘‘Tsunagaru’’: the essence of disaster eduction. In: Shaw R,Shiwaku K, Takeuchi Y (eds) Disaster education, vol 7. Community, environmental, and disaster riskmanagement, vol 7. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, UK, pp 153–162
Shiwaku K, Fernandez G (2011) Innovative approaches in disaster education. In: Shaw R, Shiwaku K,Takeuchi Y (eds) Disaster education, vol 7. Community, environment, and disaster risk management.Emerald Group Publishing Limited, UK, pp 115–136
Shiwaku K, Shaw R (2008) Proactive co-learning: a new paradigm in disaster education. Disaster PrevManag Int J 17(2):183–198
Shiwaku K, Shaw R, Kandel RC, Shrestha SN, Dixit AM (2007) Future perspective of school disastereducation in Nepal. Disaster Prev Manag 16(4):576–587
Sivell PM, Reeves SJ, Baldachin L, Brightman TG (2008) Climate change resilience indicators. Clientproject report CPR 117. Southeast England Regional Assembly (SEERA)
Timmerman P, Warrick R, Thompson S (1982) Book reviews. Clim Change 4(2):207–212TTHPPC (2005) Geography book (in Vietnamese). Thua Thien Hue Provincial People Committee, Hue CityTTHPPC (2010) Annual report (in Vietnamese). Thua Thien Hue Provincial People Committee, Hue CityTwigg J (2007) Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community: a guidance note. The DFID Disaster
Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination Group. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/2310_Characteristicsdisasterhighres.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2011
UN/ISDR (2005a) Agenda item 13-adoption of the conference declaration. United Nations/InternationalStrategy for Disaster Reduction. In: Paper presented at the world conference on disaster reduction,Kobe, Hyogo, Japan, 18–22 Jan 2005
UN/ISDR (2005b) Knowledge, innovation and education: building culture of safety and resilience. UnitedNations/International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. In: World conference on disaster reduction,Kobe, Japan, 18–22 Jan 2005
UN/ISDR (2006a) Newsletter ISDR inform—Latin America and the Caribbean. No 13/2006-disaster riskreduction begins at school. http://www.eird.org/eng/revista/no_13_2006/boletin1-ing.htm. Accessed 15Apr 2011
UN/ISDR (2006b) World disaster reduction campaign. Disaster risk reduction begins at school. UnitedNations/International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. http://www.unisdr.org/2007/campaign/wdrc-2006-2007.htm. Accessed 30 Apr 2011
UN/ISDR (2009) Regional analysis on disaster risk reduction education in the Asia Pacific Region. UnitedNations/International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Bangkok. http://www.unisdr.org/files/12081_RegionalAnalysisonDRREducationinthe.pdf. Accessed 07 Jan 2012
UN/ISDR (2011) Children’s charter for disaster risk reduction. United Nations/International Strategy forDisaster Reduction. http://www.childreninachangingclimate.org/database/CCC/Publications/children_charter.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2011
UNESCO (2005) UN decade of education for sustainable development 2005–2014. United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001416/141629e.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2011
708 Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709
123
UNESCO (2007) Secondary education regional information base: country profile—Viet Nam. UnitedNations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001553/155303e.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2011
UNESCO (2010) Building the resilience of the education sector to disasters-Myanmar education recoveryprogram. UNESCO Bangkok. http://www.unescobkk.org/education/education-for-sustainable-development/priority-areas/pcpd-responses-drr/pcpd-responses/building-the-resilience-of-the-education-sector-to-disasters/. Accessed 15 Apr 2011
UNICEF (2009) Best practices and lessons learnt: UNICEF Myanmar’s response following cycloneNargis. UNICEF Myanmar, Myanmar. http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/files/Myanmar_Nargis_Evaluation.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2011
Vandergrift J, Greene A (1992) Rethinking parent involvement. Educ Leadersh 50(1):57–59Vietnam MoET (2011) Action plan of education sector on prevention and mitigation of natural disasters in
2011–2015. Ministry of Education and Training, HanoiWMO (2009) Climate information for reducing risk. In: Paper presented at the world climate conference-3,
Geneva, Switzerland, July 2009
Nat Hazards (2012) 63:685–709 709
123
