Case Study | Japan
Module 5.1 | GPSS Safer Schools Roadmap
Investing in Continual Enhancement of
Safer School Buildings in Japan
Overview
Country: Japan
Summary: Japan has a long history of seismic events
that have caused significant loss of life and damage. The
potential impacts of earthquakes and tsunamis on school
buildings built before the 1981 Building Code put school
children and teachers at an unacceptable risk.
Stakeholders: Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), prefecture
governments, local/municipal governments, schools,
local communities, World Bank
This situation gave shape to the country-wide Program
for Earthquake-Resistant School Buildings to improve the
safety of schools infrastructure through seismic retrofitting
and reconstruction activities.
Hazards: Earthquakes and tsunamis
Investments for the Program were heavily influenced by the
high performance levels required for school buildings under
the 1981 Building Code. As the experience of seismic events
in Japan continued during the Program’s implementation,
additional non-structural considerations were highlighted.
In light of this, new investment opportunities arose and the
introduced into the Program as required.
North
Pacific
Ocean
CONTEXT
JAPAN
The Program for Earthquake-Resistant School Buildings was
launched in 2003 (the ‘Program’), supported by The World
Bank, and aimed to make all public elementary and junior
high school buildings compliant with the 1981 Building Code.
Investing in suitable interventions
under the Program
The objective of the Program was to upgrade the
earthquake-resistance of public elementary and junior high
school structures built to pre-1981 Building Regulations
through retrofitting and/or reconstruction activities. Public
facilities are often used for community shelter and disaster
management, particularly school facilities. This requires a
high performance level under the 1981 Building Code which
specifies seismic design loads of 125% for regular school
buildings and 150% for gymnasiums.
Program investments centred on structural enhancements
through retrofitting and reconstruction in order to achieve
compliance with the Building Code. These investments
were efficient because of the high degree of uniformity
2
METHODOLOGY
Japan is an industrialised, developed and democratic nation of
127 million people, located in the world’s most seismicallyactive zone, the Circum-Pacific belt (known as the Pacific
Ring of Fire). Annually, Japan experiences an average of 2000
earthquakes of intensities that people can detect, which has
resulted in a good understanding of the risks posed to school
infrastructure. With a large, advanced economy, Japan has
dedicated significant public finances to support interventions
to make schools safer.
OBJECTIVES
in school buildings across Japan, enabling the creation
of specific retrofitting guidance which could have been
significantly more costly for bespoke or multiple variations
in structural typology. Non-structural components of
safer schools were gradually added to the Program as the
experience of seismic events underlined their importance,
such as securing non-structural members, increasing
building lifespans, and improving the functional capacity
of schools buildings as evacuation centres.
Safer schools program reduces risk from
the ‘Pacific Ring of Fire’
Designing an investment program that
reduces risk to earthquakes
The Program was designed to ensure a targeted and robust
process for addressing school structural safety in Japan.
Initially this included the MEXT ‘Guidelines for Promotion
of Earthquake-resistant School Buildings’ (the ‘Guideline’)
in 2003 which set out how to prioritise vulnerable
buildings, judge the urgency of retrofitting activities, and
communicate what the basic principles of school retrofitting
are and the steps to be taken to apply them.
Following this Guideline, the Program included:
1. Implementing a basic survey to assess the conditions
of school facilities, confirm design drawings and
documentations, collect data and information on hazards,
confirm designation of evacuation centres, and identify
the merger and abolishment plans for schools in each
local government area.
2. Undertaking a prioritisation process to determine which
school buildings require further detailed vulnerability
assessment. This prioritisation criteria were based on the
building typology, year of construction, and the number
of stories.
Case Study | Japan
Module 5.1 | GPSS Safer Schools Roadmap
Subsequent steps determined the urgency of remedial
action, formulated annual work plans for retrofitting and
Executive Summary
reconstruction, and arranged to adequately finance work
through the funding partnership between the national and
local governments.
CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
3. Undertaking a detailed vulnerability assessment on the
prioritised school buildings to understand the degree of
deterioration, including structural strength, deterioration
of strength due to aging, and impacts of local conditions.
Number of
School Buidlings
95.6%
70,000
73,166
Number70,167
of
School Buidlings
80,000
92.5%
67,068
88.9%
63,101
60,000
73,166
70,000
70,167
80%
88.9%
63,101
47,949
59,295
40,000
80%
80.3%
67.0%
47,949
33,134 73.3%
40,000
62.3%
41,206
20,000
30,000
10,000
20,000
60%
67.0%
58.6%
33,134
22,911
62.3%
54.7%
18,508
22,911
54.7%
46.6%
13,412
18,508
51.8%
44.5%
8,956
13,412
49.1%
10,000
60%
58.6%
51.8%
49.1%
46.6%
2002
0
2003
44.5%
2004
2005
5,212
40%
8,956
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014 5,2122015
40%
2002
figure ES.2
2003
2004
Share of public
figure ES.2
elementary
andofjunior
Share
public
high schools
whose and junior
elementary
main structures
are whose
high schools
main structures are
earthquake-resistant
Source:
MEXT 2015b
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Remaining number
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Share of quake-
Remaining number
Share of quake-
of buildings
resistant buildings
of buildings
resistant buildings
earthquake-resistant
The program
has increased the share of public schools whose main
structures are earthquake resistant.
Source: MEXT 2015b.
Source: MEXT 2015b.
Note: The data
areThe
as data
of April
for
year.
Note:
are as
of each
April for
each year.
After the establishment of structural performance
as a ‘first priority’, the Program broadened its focus
to(nonsecuring
non-structural
and
increasing
structural) , there
has been significant progressmembers
in this area. As of April
2015, 85.5
percent of school ceilings
(non structural) , there has been significant progress in this area. As of April 2015, 85.5 percent of school ceilings
were considered safe (including gymnasiums without a suspended ceiling), and 93 percent of schools had
building
lifespans.
This
involved
the
MEXT
were considered
safe (including
gymnasiums
without
a suspended
ceiling),
and 93 percent of schools had
conducted the inspection for major nonstructural elements.
conducted the inspection for major nonstructural elements.
commissioning
a series
ofachievements,
targeted
studies,
often
from
To fully understand the program’s
evolution and
it is important
to recognize
certain key
factors
To fully understand
the
program’s
evolution and
it is important to recognize certain key factors
that drove or
facilitated
its development
andachievements,
promotion:
the
experience
of earthquakes.
These
studies informed
that drove or facilitated its development and promotion:
10 policies and shaped the following investments:
has also
made progress
in ensuring
the safety
of nonstructuralelements,
elements, which
cause
potentially
MEXT hasMEXT
also made
progress
in ensuring
the safety
of nonstructural
whichcan
can
cause
potentially
fatal As
injuries.
it developed
a relevant
guideline,
andin
in2008
2008 it
thethe
national
fatal injuries.
earlyAs
asearly
2002asit2002
developed
a relevant
guideline,
and
it began
beganpreparing
preparing
national
subsidy.
the 2011East
Great
East Japan
Earthquake,
when
MEXT
prioritizedsuspended
suspended ceilings
in gymnasiums
subsidy. Since
theSince
2011 Great
Japan
Earthquake,
when
MEXT
prioritized
ceilings
in gymnasiums
10
The relative similarity of school buildings and limited
number of structural typologies enabled the development of
specific survey methodologies for a country-wide assessment
of schools infrastructure. The majority of school buildings
consist of reinforced concrete and steel-framed structures,
which made building assessments and retrofitting options
easier to plan and develop guidance for. In specific cases for
other typologies such as timber, masonry or steel-reinforced
concrete, additional expertise was needed to provide the
relevant tools and expertise to complete the surveying task.
In undertaking assessments and retrofitting work, the lack
of technical staff at the local level meant that some local
governments reported difficulty in accessing adequate local
technical support from architectural firms. Given the scale of
the work, some local governments had to outsource work to
multiple firms at once, increasing the administrative burden.
This was overcome by opening the bidding opportunities to
firms outside their areas, even their prefectures.
84.8%
73.3%
41,206
53,636
50,000
0
100%
92.5%
80.3%
53,636
67,068
60,000
95.6%
84.8%
59,295
50,000
30,000
100%
Executive Summary
• ‘Study on promoting earthquake-resistant nonstructural members of school facilities’ (2009 to
2012) resulted in a policy emphasis earthquake
resistance in non-structural members.
• ‘Study on improvement of school facilities based on
the Great East Japan earthquake experience’ (2011)
resulted in a policy emphasis on countermeasures for
tsunamis, strengthening the functional capacity of
schools buildings as evacuation centres, and energy
supply measures.
• ‘Special committee to examine measures against
deterioration of school buildings’ (2012/13) set out a
policy for the rehabilitation for life-span extension of
school facilities.
• ‘Working group to examine measures to develop
disaster-resilient school facilities’ (2013 to 2016)
resulted in a policy emphasis on reducing disaster
risk to tsunamis, strengthening the functioning of
school facilities as evacuation centres, emergency
drills and disaster education.
OUTCOMES
80,000
Implementation at a national scale
Flexible investments and structural and
functional preparedness
Through the ongoing process of identifying, defining and
prioritising investment opportunities that respond to school
safety needs, the Program in Japan supported:
1. Investments that suitably addressed the structural
requirements of school buildings, resulting in the
number of earthquake-resistant schools rising from
44.5% at the beginning of the Program to an expected
98% at the end of the Program.
2. Investment flexibility that allowed the Program
to broaden its focus to non-structural focus areas,
resulting in more holistic school safety outcomes.
Learning
• Addressing structural issues as a first priority before
broadening the approach - if and when more funding
is available - is a sensible approach and particularly
relevant to developing country contexts where resources
are likely to be limited.
• Investment flexibility can improve safer school
outcomes by responding to new focus areas that result
from the experience of disasters and studies/technical
advancements that occur during program implementation.
Find out more
Read: Making Schools Resilient at Scale, World Bank, 2016,
www.goo.gl/CqTyyS
Contact: Vica Rosario Bogaerts, World Bank, [email protected]
Keiko Sakoda Kaneda World Bank, [email protected]
3