LUẬN văn THẠC sĩ innovative approach in developing a disaster preparedness plan for primary schools in da nang city in the context of climate change

INTRODUCTION

The necessity of the research

Climate change (CC) around the globe began to affect and directly affect the weather and climate of Vietnam with natural disasters that are more abnormal and intense Vietnam is the 6 th country in the world affected by extreme weather events in the context of CC (period 1999 - 2018) (Carter, 2008) In the context of CC, the frequency and intensity of natural disasters are increasing, causing great damages of people and properties, adversely affecting all fields (MONRE, 2016) The impact of

CC in the form of natural disasters can seriously affect Vietnam's education system and threaten the achievement of goal 4 - The Quality of Education in the Sustainable Development Goals

Education is one of the sectors most severely affected by climate disasters in Vietnam (MOET, 2011) In a country like Vietnam, natural disasters such as storms and floods can happen unexpectedly Therefore, disaster preparedness is the first and most important step to minimize damages, especially in the context of primary schools, where students are underage disasters‟ response Good disaster preparedness will help both reducing the damages and making recovery quicker Disaster preparedness is important for disaster managers, as, in the event of an emergency, the response to a disaster or natural disaster depends very much on the disaster preparedness plan (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2000)

Although natural disasters occur every year, primary schools still have confused of handling before, during, and after a disaster The recovery takes a lot of time, so interrupt learning and the quality of schools learning Primary schools prepare disaster prevention plans at the beginning of each school year Based on the country's National Action Plan to Respond to Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), the Ministry of Education and Training (MoET) will make a plan, and the Departments of Education and Training (DoET) will follow that plan to bring down the DoET of each district and the basis for the school's plan The whole process is conducted based on a top-down approach, and there is no evaluation of school conditions or any involvement of people involved in disaster preparedness of schools such as teachers, students, parents, communities, and so on

From this fact, there is a need to change the way in which schools prepare disaster plans Instead of a top-down approach, a bottom-up approach is needed This study is an attempt to develop an innovative approach in developing disaster preparedness plan in schools In order to do that, the study used the School's Disaster Resilience Assessment (SDRA) method, which includes five indicators: "Physical conditions", "Human resources", "Institutional issues", "External relationships" and

"Natural conditions" (Tong S R., 2012) Results from the assessment of disaster resilience level of primary schools in Da Nang city is utilized to point out the problems, to identify factors that affecting the primary schools's ability to cope with natural disasters On this basis, the study figures out a roadmap to improve resilience of the schools

In this thesis, the disaster resilience level of primary schools in Da Nang City, the differences in disaster resilience level among the coastal, low plain, and mountainous areas, and the changes in disaster resilience level of primary schools from

2012 to 2019 will be presented From there, the study selects three pilot primary schools and develops disaster preparedness plans for them Difficulties and challenges in the pilot process at selected schools are summarized in this study as a basis for building an innovative approach to develop a disaster preparedness plan The results of this study is expected to contribute to improve the resilience level of primary schools through well establishment of disaster preparedness plan development, which in turn will help schools effectively respond to natural disasters, to adapt to CC, and to achieve Goal 4 in 17 Sustainable Development Goals on Sustainable Quality Education.

Research objectives and research objects

The main objective of the research is to develop an innovative approach in developing a disaster preparedness plan that can be applied to primary schools in the context of CC

To accomplish the above objective, the research tasks are set out as follows:

 Carrying out key interviews with the representative of Da Nang DoET to apply for permission to work and adjust the questionnaire to suit the primary schools in Da Nang City;

 Carrying out key interviews with schools's disaster managers and representative of DoET's in 7 districts;

 Sending questionnaires to 97 primary schools and getting back the questionnaire (contact the schools for correction if any);

 Compare disaster resilience level between schools has the highest score and lowest score; among three areas; between 2012 and 2019;

 Building a disaster preparedness plan for schools to improve the resilience of education to disaster risks and testing in 1 school in each areas;

 Focus group discussions with relevant stakeholders to propose and prioritize solutions for school disaster resilience;

The object of research is to develop an innovative way to build disaster preparedness plan for primary schools in Da Nang city.

The research questions and hypotheses

 What are the most important factors deciding the disaster resilience level of primary schools in Da Nang City?

 How are the differences between the highest and lowest school's disaster resilience level; among three geographical areas (coastal, low plains, and mountainous); and between 2012 and 2019?

 How to develop an effective disaster preparedness plan for primary schools in

 The resilience level of primary schools in Da Nang City is depending mostly in

 The difference between schools with the highest and lowest scores is mainly in the “Human resources” dimension; There is no significant difference in natural disaster resilience of the three regions; There is a significant improvement in scores in all parameters of 2019 compared to 2012;

 An innovative approach to develop a disaster preparedness plan for primary schools includes (1) assessment of schools‟ disaster resilience using SDRA method, (2) proposing solutions to improve disaster resilience level using expert consultation, (3) involvement of stakeholders to evaluate and choose the most suitable solutions for schools; (4) re-assessment the schools‟ disaster resilience and the plan every year to update the disaster preparedness plan.

Research location

The study was conducted in 97 primary schools in Da Nang

Time: from April 2019 to April 2020

Da Nang is a coastal city in the Central region of Vietnam Geographic location is a factor that makes Da Nang potentially severely affected by natural disasters From

1999 to 2009, there were 23 typhoons, 35 floods, injuring 277 people, lost 19 people and killed 200 people in Da Nang city, total economic losses amounted to 6,803.5 billion VND (CCFSC, 2009) The biggest storm causing damage to Da Nang was the

2006 Xangsane typhoon, causing economic losses of about VND 5,290 trillion (over

USD 300 million), destroying 9,906 houses, 73,874 houses damaged and 2,760 schools affected (CCFSC, 2006)

In recent years, in order to proactively prevent and respond effectively to natural disasters and situations of accidents and disasters caused by serious floods, the People's Committee of Da Nang City issued a directive request departments, agencies, districts in the city to develop disaster prevention plans, raise public awareness about disaster prevention and fighting; organize drills on natural disaster prevention and control in localities to draw experience The Da Nang People's Committee has also issued Decisions and Plans to implement the Government's instructions on Disaster Prevention and Response to CC

Regarding education, Da Nang's DoET has organized many activities to integrate contents related to CC in the subjects at all levels, combining extracurricular activities to provide knowledge on CC, building awareness for students on responding to CC Da Nang has also strengthened the "Physical conditions" of almost schools located in vulnerable areas such as coastal, mountainous and low plains areas

Although there have been extracurricular activities on disaster risk reduction education (DRRE) for some schools, the DRRE activities of schools in Da Nang city have not been synchronized There is no specific plan for each school, only the "Handbook of DRRE for teachers", which has not specified specific steps to respond to natural disasters for teachers, students, parents This limits the ability of schools to respond to disasters, disrupting, and affecting the quality of education

Primary schools play an important role in training knowledge, disseminating skills in natural disaster prevention, fighting and reduction, and CC response in schools (Prime Minister, 2018) Primary schools in Da Nang city has been applying local regulations on natural disaster prevention and control However, the application of these regulations is only moderate This is reflected in the school's response to natural disasters

Every year, Da Nang's education sector is affected by the floods that occur often at the beginning and end of the school year Dien Hong, Hoang Du Khuong, Thai Thi Boi and Ong Ich Duong primary school (Cam Le district) were hit by Hurricane Katrina, destroyed roofs, broken trees, causing damage to nearly VND 50 million each school in 2009 (Cam Le DoET, 2009) Typhoon Nari in October 2013 caused heavy rainfall and all primary schools in the center of city had to closed One month later, in November 2013, primary schools in Hoa Vang district, including Lam Quang Thu primary school, were seriously flooded due to floods from the Tuy Loan River near the school Especially the most recent three rainy seasons, at the end of 2017, 2018 and

2019 In November 2017, heavy rains caused Hoa Vang district, a region of low terrain, to be flooded in a large area In December 2018, floodwaters flooded many schools in Hai Chau, Hoa Vang, Thanh Khe and Ngu Hanh Son districts and were closed In less than a month, Lam Quang Thu primary school had to close three times (October 20th, November 1st, and November 17th, 2018) (Hoa Vang DoET, 2018)

Heavy rains in December 2018 caused extensive flooding for central districts of Da Nang City Nearly 2000 students of primary schools in Hai Chau District, Huynh Ngoc Hue and Huynh Thuc Khang primary school (Thanh Khe District) had to close due to the heavy rain Besides, Nguyen Dinh Chieu primary school (Thanh Khe District) was flooded many offices, the entire archives of the school were wet (Thanh Khe DoET,

2018) By the end of 2019, floods also affected schools in Da Nang In particular, Lam Quang Thu primary school had to close three times within a month due to flooding

Natural disasters cause serious damage to facilities, teaching equipment, and directly threaten the safety of teachers and students when going to schools in flooded conditions Whenever a disaster strikes, classroom facilities and the quality of education are affected Phan Dang Luu primary school was flooded to the table (in

2018), many teaching aids were soaked in water, documents and records were wet

Primary schools Dien Hong, Hoang Du Khuong, Thai Thi Boi, Ong Ich Duong of Cam

Le district were affected by the storm (2009-2010 school year), the costs amounted to VND 50 million each Although natural disasters occur every year, schools still have the embarrassment of handling before, during, and after a disaster occurs Disaster recovery also takes time, affecting learning All schools prepare a disaster preparedness plan at the beginning of each school year, however, the plan is at a sketchy level, without assigning tasks to specific people and “Human resources” nor finance for disaster preparedness is available

The study was conducted at all primary schools in six urban districts and one rural district in Da Nang City In the school year 2018-2019, the number of public primary schools are 97, with about 92,000 students For the purpose of comparing disaster resilience among areas, primary schools in Da Nang City are divided into three areas: coastal, low plain, and mountainous areas based on the location of the schools and the distance from the school to the coast Table 1.1 shows the number of schools located in three areas

Table 0.1 The number of primary schools divided into 3 areas

Literature review

This part presents an overview of disaster management and disaster preparedness plans to better understand the context of research around the world and in Vietnam as it relates to the research goal This aims to provide a basic picture of the current state of school disaster management and related issues The first part consists of research in the world, the second part is the research in Vietnam and the last is the research site

1.5.1 Theoretical basis 1.5.1.1 Concepts of the research

The term disaster origin is the French word "Desastre" which is a combination of two words „des‟ meaning bad and „aster‟ meaning star So the term refers to "Bad star" United Nations (UN) defines that Disaster is a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources (UN, 2009)

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development declares that natural disasters, such as floods, earthquakes and droughts, are always part of the natural cycle everywhere in the world (The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development , 1999) The impact of natural disasters is enormous, resulting in the death and destruction of houses and socio-economic infrastructure (Mileti, DS , 1999)

Disaster management includes organizing, planning, and applying actions to prepare for, respond to or recover from a disaster (UNDDR, 2017) This is a complex process, revolving around four interdependent steps, including preparation, reaction, recovery and mitigation Disasters occur between steps of preparation and response

Department for International Development (2011) defines Disaster Resilience as the ability of countries, communities and households to manage change, by maintaining or changing living standards in the face of shocks or stress - like earthquakes, droughts or violent conflicts - without lasting impact UNISDR (2008) defines Disaster Resilience as the ability of a system, community or society to be exposed to hazards to adapt, by resisting or changing to maintain functional and structural acceptance (UNISDR, 2018)

As such, Disaster Resilience is generally a community's ability to resist, or accept disaster To help both reducing the dramatically and making recovery quicker, a Good disaster preparedness is needed Disaster preparedness is important for disaster managers, as, in the event of an emergency, the response to a disaster or natural disaster depends very much on the disaster preparedness plan Disaster preparedness is often considered to include measures that allow governments, organizations, communities and individuals to respond quickly and effectively to disaster situations (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2000)

Herzog indicate that catastrophic impacts can be mitigate by mitigation efforts or preparation planning (Herzog, 2007) Yodmani shows that carpet management activities Graphics have evolved from most of the top-down relief and response approaches Disaster management in the past mainly dealt with natural disasters and recovery, while disaster risk management encapsulated all disaster management components (prevention, preparation, mitigation, and response) (Yodmani, 2001)

The level of readiness for a disaster situation that can occur for a given community is called resilience Increased resilience is needed to reduce disaster impacts (Haworth, Bruce, Whittaker, & & Read, 2018)

Disaster management is important because it includes measures that not only help relief and recovery, but also reduce disaster risk in the community (Ngcamu &

Sibongiseni, 2011) The Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) declares declares that disaster management is essential for all countries as it can avoid and minimize the impact of disasters However, disaster preparedness often fails because it is often not based on evidence or subject matter It suggests that an evaluation of the subject's ability is required before conducting disaster preparedness planning (Guha-sapir, L.V.Parry, O.Degomme, Joshi, & Arnold, 2006)

A number of disasters can be prevented and mitigated through improved disaster management capacity to address different aspects of prevention, preparation, mitigation, response, recovery and recovery Holloway argues that disaster risk reduction is the systematic development and application of policies, strategies and practices to mitigate vulnerabilities and disaster risks across society to prevent or limit the adverse effects of hazards, in the context of sustainable development (Holloway,

2003) Haddow et al emphasize that risk reduction, emergency preparedness and recovery preparation practices can reduce losses (Jane A Bullock, 2006)

All components of disaster management such as mitigation and preparation should be modeled to simplify all risk mitigation processes in local government In South Africa, the local government is responsible for implementing and maintaining a comprehensive, full-risk disaster management program, ensuring the following components in disaster management; mitigation; preparation; react; aid; and rehabilitation (Zyl, 2006)

Bullock had found another way to reduce the impact of catastrophes by applying emergency precautions, which can be defined as pre-disaster actions, providing human force and material needed to support reactions at the time of the disaster The first step in emergency preparedness is a community vulnerability analysis to identify emergency response requirements that must be met by performing four basic emergency response functions, including: ( 1) emergency assessment actions, such as forecasting storm speed to determine potential disaster impacts; (2) hazardous activities, such as sandbags surrounding buildings, are short-term actions to protect property; (3) population protection actions, such as warnings and evacuations, to protect people from impact; and (4) incident management actions, such as liaison between feedback agencies (Jane A Bullock, 2006)

In the study of Nahid Aghaei (2018) a systematic review was conducted to assess and aggregate the evidence on the strategies (Allen, 2006) for DRRE conducted in December 2016 Although most countries have launched DRR educational activities, these actions are not enough, and there are some gaps between what it should and what should be More effective teaching and learning strategies are needed to increase the effectiveness of preparatory and DRR activities at all community levels (Nahid Aghaei,

According to the UN, the preparation action is taken in the context of disaster risk management and aims to build the capacities needed to effectively manage all types of emergencies and achieve transformative order from response to sustainable recovery Preparation should be based on a reasonable analysis of disaster risk and good connectivity with early warning systems, and include activities such as contingency planning, equipment and supplies storage, and development arrangements for coordination, evacuation and public information (UN, 2009)

Why do we need to develop disaster preparedness plan for schools?

Disaster preparedness in schools is the lowest when compared to settlements and communities Meanwhile, it is likely that disaster also happens in schools A school disaster preparedness system has been developed to facilitate good and effective coordination and response in school emergencies and disasters In the school's disaster preparedness system, there should be headquarters, evacuation zones, disaster management teams, and the division of their respective tasks and equipment, including simulation and preparation practices There is a clear description of responsibilities among principals, teachers, administrative staff, and other parties involved in improving school disaster preparedness (Lesmana & N Purborini, 2015)

Disaster preparedness in schools is to strengthen the school's capacity and readiness to respond to natural disasters By including disaster materials in supplemental subjects, teacher training, and advocacy show simulation activities in schools (LIPI, UNESCO, and ISDR, 2006)

Framework of the Master‟s thesis

The traditional way of preparing disaster preparedness plans for primary schools in Da Nang is based on a top-down approach Therefore, this study proceeds to formulate a plan from the bottom-up approach The innovation is demonstrated by the use of SDRA to assess the school's disaster resilience It is the basis for proposing solutions to improve disaster resilience for schools, helping schools better prepare and recover after disasters In addition, group discussions to assess the solution are conducted in schools to increase the feasibility and suitability of the solutions These plans are also reviewed and updated over the years to ensure conformity Five steps of researching and developing a natural disaster prevention plan for primary schools in Da Nang city:

Step 1: Identifying factors related to school disaster resilience Limit and adjust the content of disaster preparedness in schools to suit the research objectives

Step 2: Summarizing documents, research the contents that need to focus on investigation for the evaluation process (knowledge about CC, natural disasters, environment, characteristics of primary education, primary schools in Da Nang, )

Step 3: Assessing the school's disaster resilience level of primary schools in Da Nang In particular, the research content is divided into three stages:

- Phase 1: Preparation (identifying the research objectives, contacting schools, the DoET);

- Phase 2: Survey by questionnaire with 97 primary schools in Da Nang city;

- Phase 3: Consult with the DoET on natural disaster-related activities of primary schools

Step 4: Analyzing the results Based on the results obtained from the survey, interview, conducting calculation of collected results, analyzing to see the determinants of the school's disaster resilience, and problems exist Comparing the results among 3 areas, with the results of the research on disaster resilience in 2012 to see the change as a basis for proposing solutions

Step 5: Planning for disaster preparedness Selecting 3 schools in 3 different regions, proposing solutions to improve resilience for each school Combined with the evaluation of the school's solution and the DoET as the basis for the school's disaster preparedness plan.

RESEARCH METHODS

Document analysis method

This method is extremely important and necessary, helping to expertise the scientific basis as well as documents that are relevant to the research objectives Data about the research area in recent years including: disaster management, disaster risk management, disaster preparedness in the world and in Vietnam have been carefully collected and screened These documents are in various types, including books, maps, and charts; newspaper (piece/article); Press Release; reports of organizations; and survey data related to the field of school disaster preparedness and disaster resilience planning These types of documents are found in libraries, newspaper archives, organizations, and Internet document pages

In addition, the study also uses Vietnamese legal documents in general and Da Nang in particular The main content of these documents is about disaster education activities in schools, disaster management for the education sector, and reports on summarizing natural disasters in the last 5 years of Da Nang city

By summarizing and examining the collected information, the research can uncover outstanding issues in the field of study, showing the common ground and the differences of previous studies Since then, clarify the scientific basis as well as better orientation in the process of collecting documents on natural disaster preparedness and

CC response in recent years

Sociological Research Methods

The survey was conducted in Da Nang city between April 15 and April 27,

2019 A total of 96 primary schools participated in the survey out of 97 schools received a questionnaire, yielding a response rate of approximately 98.97% (List of schools is in Appendix 2) Figure 2.2 is the location map of 97 primary schools in Da Nang city

Figure 2.2 Location map of 97 primary schools in Da Nang city

In order to develop a school disaster preparedness plan, the school's disaster resilience level must be assessed first to understand the school's capabilities, constraints, and problems in its response The results of this evaluation will be the basis for proposing solutions to improve the school's capacity, helping to prepare and recover disaster A questionnaire bases on the SDRA method (Tong, 2012) was used to assess the disaster resilience level of primary schools The study focused on the resilience of primary schools with five types of natural disasters affecting Da Nang City, including storms, floods, heatwaves, droughts, and sea levels rise

This questionnaire identifies five aspects of schools' ability to bear disaster risks based on the local context of Vietnam, including 5 dimensions (1) "Physical conditions", (2) “Human resources”, (3) "Institutional issues", (4) "External relationships" and (5) "Natural conditions" In particular, each dimension consists of 3 parameters, and each parameter is evaluated by 5 different variables (The list of dimensions, parameters, and variables is in Appendix 4) The total number of variables assessed is 75

Each value in the table is represented as a question with answers coded on a scale from 1 to 5 After 5 questions, there will be evaluating the importance of values in the order from 1 to 5 (from zero important to very important) Every 15 values (belonging to 3 parameters of the same criteria), evaluating the importance of the parameters in the same dimensions in the order of 1 to 3 (from unimportant to very important) The score is calculated as the average of the values and the importance of that value according to the following formula:

Score of parameter (p): p = (v 1 *s 1 + v 2 *s 2 + v 3 *s 3 + v 4 *s 4 + v 5 *s 5 )/ 15 Where: p is the point of the parameter v 1 is the point of variable 1 s 1 is the importance of variable 1 Score of dimension (D)

D is the point of the dimension p 1 is the point of the parameter 1 s 1 is the importance of parameter 1

Table 2.1 Explanation the school's level of disaster resilience

Each school answered a questionnaire The person in charge of the school's disaster management will evaluate these aspects The answer to the questionnaire is based on the views of the school and not the individual ones

First, the questionnaires were distributed to primary schools In order to ensure that all surveys are received, there are two ways to distribute them by email to each school and to have DoET staff send the survey After that, the author will go to each school to get the answer sheet and correct the errors if any (Figure 2.3 and 2.4)

Figure 2.3 Conduct survey with the director of Ngo Gia Tu primary school

Figure 2.4 Conduct survey with the vice-director of Phan Phu Tien primary school

In this study, key interviews were conducted with officials of the DoET of districts to understand the problems of education, response to natural disasters of primary schools The results from the key interviews will also be compared with the results of the interview with the questionnaire to validate the two-way information and increase the authenticity of the research results Figure 2.5 describes the whole process of implementing the key interview method

Figure 2.5 Process of implementing key interview method

The interviews took place throughout the course of the study, which was divided into three official (Figure 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, and Table 1 - Appendix 6), including:

 1 st round interview (before sending questionnaire)

 2 nd interview (after sending questionnaire)

 3 rd round interview (after collecting questionnaire)

Figure 2.6 Interview Ngu Hanh Son's DoET staff

Figure 2.7 Interview Director of Dinh Bo Linh primary school

Figure 2.8 Interview a student of Doan Thi Diem primary school

Focus group discussions were used in this study at the end of the research process, seeking comments on the proposed pilot solutions for the three schools Three group discussions took place, corresponding to the evaluation of solutions for three schools in three different regions Participants are representatives of the school and DoET A table of solutions is printed out and explained in detail, after consideration based on the objective viewpoint of the school and DoET, the parties will judge on the votes Table 2.2 is information about group discussions

Table 2.2 Information about focus group discussions

1 Doan Thi Diem School: Director

2 Ngo Quyen School: Vice-Director

3 Lam Quang Thu School: Vice-Director

The author conducted observation, natural conversations, interviews of various sorts, and a survey by questionnaires with DoET's staff and representatives of schools

By joining some classes and interviewing teachers and students, the author was able to observe their activities to:

 Collecting both quantitative and qualitative data through surveys and interviews;

 Getting a better understanding of the disaster preparedness activities, and checking the reliability of the survey results with the questionnaire.

Methods of data analysis

Statistical, analytical and comparative methods are needed in clarifying the research problem Based on the results of the questionnaire interview, all statistical analyses were carried out using Excel software (Data analysis process is in Appendix

To answer the research question 1, the weighted average function is used to calculate the school's disaster resilience The average function is also used to calculate the average score for schools in three regions, including the coastal, the low plain and the mountainous From there, compare the level of disaster resilience among the three regions, between the primary schools with the highest and lowest scores, and between

2019 and 2012 to answer the research question 2

The correlation was used to determine if each of the variables and parameters had a significant relationship on dimensions‟ score or disaster resilience level Then, solutions will be put in place to improve scores for that parameter, to improve school resilience This is also to answer the research question 3

Method of maps and charts

The study uses ArcGIS software to visualize the location of 97 schools on the map to see the distribution of primary schools in Da Nang City From that, it is

1 Omit useless data 2 Conduct statistical analysis 3 Visualize data possible to make judgments, assessments and comparisons about the school's disaster resilience.

DISASTERS RESILIENCE LEVEL OF PRIMARY SCHOOL IN DA

Result of disaster resilience level of primary schools in Da Nang city

Primary schools in Da Nang city are often located in densely populated areas, close to administrative agencies and convenient roads However, due to the nature of the coastal area, many schools are located close to the coastline, highways, and some schools are located near large rivers and streams, which are potential risks of floods, storms and many other risks

This study was conducted at all primary schools in six urban districts (Hai Chau, Thanh Khe, Cam Le, Son Tra, Ngu Hanh Son, Lien Chieu) and one rural district (Hoa Vang) in Da Nang City There are 97 surveys, 1 is invalid (Nui Thanh primary school),

96 are valid Therefore, these analysis results are based on the analysis data of 96 primary schools in Da Nang city (Figure 3.1) (The general information and score of parameters are shown in appendix 4 and appendix 5) The score is divided into 5 ranks, includes very low (1.1 - 1.89), low (1.9 - 2.69), medium (2.7 - 3.49), high (3.5 - 4.29), and very high (4.3 - 5.0)

According to the average score of 5 parameters and 15 indicators shown in figure 3, the disaster resilience level of primary schools in Da Nang City is average (3.33 points) In which, the "Human resources" factor has the highest score (3.77 points); "Physical condition", "Institutional issues", and "External relationships" are averaged; meanwhile, the dimension of "Natural conditions" reaches the lowest point

(Figure 3.2) There is no significant difference between the scores of human resource parameters, facilities conditions, "Institutional issues", and "External relationships" In the 96 schools, 30.2% have high resilience, 66.67% have medium resilience and only 3.13% show low resilience

Figure 3.1 Disaster resilience level of 96 primary schools, Da Nang city

HC1 HC2HC3HC4 HC6 HC7 HC8

HC9 HC10 HC11 HC12 HC13 HC14 HC15 HC16 HC17 HC18 TK19 TK20 TK21 TK22 TK23 TK24 TK25 TK26 TK27 TK28 TK29 TK30 TK31 TK32 TK33 TK34 CL35 CL36 CL37 CL38 CL39 CL40 CL41 CL43 CL42 ST45 CL44 ST47 ST46 ST49 ST48 ST51 ST50

ST53 ST52 ST55 ST54 ST57 ST56 NH58 NH59 NH60 NH61 NH62 NH63 NH64 NH65

HV84 HV85 HV86 HV87 HV88 HV89 HV90 HV91 HV92 HV93 HV94 HV95 HV96 HV97

Figure 3.2 The average score of the parameters

Parameters of "Physical condition" achieved an average score, contributed by

"School building" (3.55 points), "Facilities and equipment" (2.89 points) and "Sanitary conditions" (3.95 points)

Most of the primary schools in Da Nang City had been built since the 20th century, then repaired or built more classrooms The survey's result on "School building" shows that 15.63% of schools have still been built for a long time without shelter rooms for natural disasters As many as 23.96% of schools do not have emergency exit systems (exits, exit corridors) and 6.25% of schools have poor emergency systems This will cause great obstacles in case of a natural disaster or emergency However, the schools ensure that the Government's regulations on safe construction are applied and the damage caused by natural disasters in the 2017-2018 school year is a little or not a serious impact, so the score of "School building" indicator is still high

"Facilities and equipment" parameter has the lowest score to contribute to the

"Physical conditions" Up to 99% of schools conduct periodic tests of teaching equipment but with an unequal frequency (Figure 3.3)

Figure 3.3 The level of periodic testing with teaching equipment

No each 2 year once per year twice per year

Most schools have prepared emergency equipment However, 51.04% of schools prepare emergency equipment at an average level Schools mainly prepare simple, long-lasting items such as loudspeakers, flashlights, screens, floats, and some of the available items like drinking water, shrimp noodles Although most schools emphasize the importance of preparing emergency equipment, the quantity, and quality of the schools have not been considered and tested so the effects may not too high

"Sanitary conditions" parameter achieves the highest score among the 3 parameters This can be explained by the fact that 100% of schools organize environmental protection programs or activities for students, organize periodic inspections of dangerous devices or materials, and ensure hygiene and food safety for students in the school Only 1.04% of schools have daily waste collected and dumped in the prescribed places less than 10%, the rest reach over 50% and over 75% The People's Committee of Da Nang City (2008) issued the Project "Building Da Nang - Environmental City" until 2020 to build an environmental city, by June 2019, which has completed 7/10 criteria Decision 33/2018/QD-UBND of the People's Committee of Da Nang City on the promulgation of the Regulation on environmental protection in the city of Da Nang has also specified specific requirements on subjects and responsibilities, and environmental protection activities for each field

The "Human resources" dimension has the highest score among all 5 dimensions that were assessed, showing the importance of human factors to the disaster resilience level In which, the parameters of "Teachers" (3.86 points) and "Students"

(3.86 points) achieved high scores, contributing more to the human resource dimension than "Parents" (3.41 points) This reflects the level of parental involvement and role in the school's disaster resilience

82.3% of schools have good and very good plans regarding disaster prevention and response to teachers and staff However, the training course is not enough 100% of the teachers and staff involved The main training method of schools is the content spectrum in briefings Only some schools, such as Dinh Bo Linh, Nguyen Trung Truc, and Dinh Cong Uan primary school, have been chosen as pilots to implement disaster education in schools before, while others often do not have specific topics about natural disaster risks that only integrate this content into other topics This can not guarantee the knowledge of natural disasters of teachers and staff, nor the ability to communicate knowledge to students about natural disaster issues and respond to them

"Students" are the subjects who are most focused on coping with natural disasters and are equipped with basic knowledge about natural disasters Most schools (86.87%) equip students with knowledge about the dangers and impacts of natural disasters through extra-curricular activities, activities, and integration in subjects such as social, science and natural geography Schools also focus on disaster education for students Since 2016, according to Directive 09/CT-UBND, implementing the Decision 234/QD-TTG of February 5, 2016, of the Prime Minister, Da Nang has implemented many measures to implement effective injury prevention for children One of the most important goals of the Da Nang education sector is calling and mobilizing socialized resources to invest in material and technical facilities in service of swimming lessons for 100% of primary pupils in the area The portable swimming pool sponsored by the World - Australia Relief Organization (AOGWR) through the Da Nang Children Sponsorship Fund was put into operation at Le Van Hien primary school (Ngu Hanh Son District) (September 2016), and at Lam Quang Thu primary school (October

2017) Hoa Vang district is the first district in Da Nang city where all primary schools have swimming pools Students can take swimming lessons in a physical education class, or sign up for a summer swimming course All primary students have to be able to swim before they graduate primary education This helps improve the quality of comprehensive education, helps students improve their health, improve their physical and life skills, actively adapt to "Natural conditions", especially to prevent drowning and increase students' ability to respond to natural disasters

In Da Nang City, 78.14% of schools discussed disaster-related issues during the regular Parents association meetings, but only 38.54% of schools held the program or regular disaster training for parents This does not guarantee not only parents but also students' knowledge of natural disasters, which can affect their knowledge about natural disasters and their ability to recover However, all schools have a contact system between the school and family in an emergency (via SMS, social networks Facebook, Zalo app) and 94.8% of popular schools related plans to the disaster prevention and response for parents to timely coordinate in the event of a natural disaster This is consistent with 59.38% of schools saying that parents have a good role, level of participation and support for activities related to the school's natural disaster prevention content Therefore, the score of the "Parent" parameter still reaches 3.41 points

"Institutional issues" dimension achieved the average score, contributed by the

"Planning" (4.08 points), "Management" (3.42 points), and "Budget" (2.57 points)

The "Planning" is the parameter which achieves the highest score among the 15 evaluation parameters This is the result of 100% of primary schools integrating disaster prevention-related content into their school plans, regulations, and curriculum

Disparities in disaster resilience between schools have the highest and lowest

The school with the highest score on disaster resilience is Nguyen Binh Khiem primary school (TK34) (4.19 points), and the lowest one is Tieu La primary school (ST49) (2.37 points) Points of parameters and criteria are shown in Figure 3.4

The purpose of the comparison is to understand which activities will contribute to improving the resilience capacity in schools Also understand why ST49's school disaster response capacity is low / limited

"Physical conditions" is assessed through three parameters "School buildings",

"Facilities and equipment" and "Hygienic and environmental conditions of school"

The average score of the "Physical conditions" of TK34 is 4.09 points at high level while ST49 only achieves 2.12 points at low level

Figure 3.4 The average of the parameters

"School buildings": While TK34 does a good job of assessing the safety of classrooms and school buildings at a frequency of 2 times/year, ST49 does not conduct inspections despite the importance of this activity is highly appreciated by both schools So it can be seen that although ST49 is aware of the importance of checking the safety of schools, it may be because of limited resources, they can not perform this activity, or do not integrate classroom safety content check into plan

TK34 has an emergency exit and shelter for use in case of a disaster but ST49 does not This is the reason why ST49's "Physical conditions" dimension is low

"Facilities and equipment": TK34 and ST49 both focus on periodic testing of teaching equipment, and consider it to be the most important issue in the "Facilities and equipment" parameter However, only TK34 complies with the frequency of testing 2 times/year, in accordance with the general requirements of the City DoET on the periodic inspection of teaching equipment In contrast, ST49 does not conduct periodic inspections, which not only does not meet the standards of the DoET and also does not guarantee the quality of teaching equipment That could be the cause of an unsafe situation in an emergency or a disaster risk happening The preparation of emergency tool kit of TK34 is good, higher than ST49 (very low level) It is worth mentioning that ST49 does not install environmental protection devices

"Hygienic and environmental conditions of school" for both schools achieved the highest score in three parameters: 4.4 points for TK34 and 3.2 points for ST49

There is a difference in scores between the two schools because TK34 is focused on the periodic inspection of equipment and materials that are dangerous 4 times/year while ST49 only conducts test 1 time/year Besides, TK34 organizes environmental protection activities for students, in various forms such as cleaning the public environment, launching tree planting, recycling school waste, and so on with an average frequency of about 4 times/year Every month, TK34 will have a topic for extracurricular activities, in which, environmental protection, natural disaster prevention are also topics that interest and implementation of TK34 Meanwhile ST49 only organize 1 activity/year The reason for this may be that ST49 does not have enough resources to conduct extracurricular examinations/activities; and may be due to the curriculum, there is no time to organize activities

TK34 scores very high for all three parameters "Teacher and staff" (4.73 points), "Student" (4.67 points) and "Parents" (4.73 points), higher than with ST49 with scores of parameters are "Teachers and staff" (2 points), "Students" (1.27 points) and "Parents" (2.13 points)

Both schools pay attention to equipping knowledge about the dangers and impacts of natural disasters as well as disseminating plans related to disaster preparedness and response to teachers and staff However, only TK34 organizes regular training programs and disaster courses for teachers and staff while ST49 does not Besides, TK34 also made the dissemination of disaster prevention plan better than ST49 These reasons make a big difference in the score of "Teacher and staff"

TK34 enhances students' role in disaster resilience by providing disaster knowledge, organizing regular disaster training, and disseminating disaster prevention plans for students This helps TK34 reach a relatively high level ST49, on the other hand, does not organize student activities, and does not place a high importance on the student parameter, making it the lowest of the three contributing to "Human Resources"

TK34 brings disaster-related issues into discussion during Parent Association regular meetings up to 3 times per year while ST49 does not The role, involvement and support of parents in activities related to disaster prevention content of TK34 is also very good while ST49 does not have parental involvement in this It can be seen that the role and parental involvement in TK34 are more focused than ST49 For ST49, disaster preparedness and recovery activities are all carried out by teachers and school staff The school did not make use of the "Human resources" from the parents, due to the inability to call for parent involvement Although ST49 appreciates the importance of parents, due to the limited awareness of parents, their participation in natural disaster prevention is not meaningful, so they do not participate

The "Planning" parameter includes 5 variables, including: (1) Incorporation of disaster components into school planning; (2) Incorporation of disaster components into school regulation; (3) Incorporation of disaster components into school syllabus;

(4) Preparedness and emergency management plan; and (5) Recovery management plan The score of the "Planning" parameter of both schools is very high "Planning" is also the only parameter to achieve a very high score of ST49 The integration of contents related to natural disaster prevention into the operation plan, regulations and curriculum as well as the planning of disaster preparedness and recovery of both schools are very good In particular, (1) Incorporation of disaster components into school planning contributes the most to the score of TK34's "Planning" parameter For ST49, the aspect (4) Preparedness and emergency plan contribute the most to the score of the "Planning" parameter This indicates that focusing on disaster preparedness plans can enhance school disaster resilience through increasing the score for the

TK34's "Management" parameter is high while that of ST49 is low, although the two schools' views on the importance of "Management" issues are the same This is the result of ST49 focusing on planning rather than on specific disaster prevention activities ST49 does not organize any activities related to disaster prevention, nor does it organize a disaster-related working group These activities content is also not ranked high in importance While TK34 organizes activities related to the content of natural disaster prevention as well as establishing a working group, meeting and training content of natural disasters twice a year TK34 Organizes activities such as drawing, storytelling, and contest with content related to natural disasters that encourage students to learn about disaster knowledge This is also an effective way to spread information/education to students This is the reason for the high score of the

"Management" parameter of TK34 (4.2 points)

"Budget" is the parameter with the highest difference between the two schools,

TK34 reaches 4.4, points (very high), ST49 only reaches 1 point (very low) The reason for this difference is that ST49 does not organize activities related to disasters, periodic inspection of school equipment At the same time, the budget constraint makes it difficult for ST49 to carry out these activities TK34, on the other hand, organizes all of these activities in a positive way This is the reason for the differences in scores for both schools

"Collaboration with other organizations": TK34's score is 3.2 and ST49 is only

2.6 points TK34 participates in regular meetings to discuss disaster-related issues with the DoET, with the People's Committee at a frequency of 4 times/year, more than ST49

(3 times/year) The two schools are in two different districts, so the frequency of meetings with the DoET will be different However, the information-sharing network aspects and operation of the local government's warning system to the ST49 are all lower than TK34 This shows a lack of links between schools and local authorities on disaster preparedness All other primary schools in Son Tra district have scores

"Relationship between school and community" higher than ST49 The frequency of meetings with the Government, and the DoETs with discussions about disasters, as well as the operation of the warning system and cooperation with the authorities in the event of a disaster is also better than ST49 This shows that the reason for ST49 not cooperating well with other organizations is not because the organization, but that ST49 itself does not cooperate and takes advantage of resources from other organizations

"Relationship between school and community": TK34 achieved absolute scores in this parameter Although both schools rank the same importance of the issues in the

"Relationship between school and community" parameter, TK34 actively participates in activities related to disaster content due to local organizations (more than 2 times/year) while ST49 is not involved in this activity TK34 also received support from emergency relief teams in the event of a disaster and ST49 did not This further clarifies the bad cooperation with the other organization and community of ST49

Disaster resilience among coastal, low plains, and mountainous area

The study compares schools' disaster resilience in three regions, including coastal, low plains, and mountainous Because schools are located in different regions, the geographical conditions and effects of natural disasters vary This comparison aims to clarify which parameters are more effective, contributing more to the school's disaster resilience in each region From that, select solutions to improve disaster resilience for schools in the region

The 96 primary schools are divided into three regions based on their distance to the coast There are 70 schools in the coastal area, 17 schools in the plain and 9 schools in the mountains The results of schools' ability to recover from natural disasters are presented in Table 3.2 and Figure 3.5

Table 3.2 Disaster resilience of schools divided by region

According to Figure 3.5, the coastal area has the highest score for disaster resilience level (3,344 points), the low plains rank second (3,335 points), and finally the mountainous area (3,334 points) However, the scores of the regions are all in the average score, and the difference in points of the regions is not significant The difference in points does not differ significantly in the criteria "Physical conditions" and "Institutional issues" The difference in scores is more evident in the criteria

"Human resources", "External relationships", and "Natural conditions"

"Physical conditions" dimension scored the highest in the coastal area, followed by plain and mountainous areas Regarding the correlation between the scores of the

"Physical conditions" dimension and the disaster resilience, the coastal area has a average correlation, the plain has a low correlation and the mountains do not show a correlation Specifically, there are differences in the high and low rankings in each parameter (Table 3.3)

Table 3.3 The average score of the parameters in the " Physical conditions" of the three areas

Sanitation conditions Coatstal 3.60 (high) 2.84 (medium) 3.95 (high)

Low plain 3.47 (medium) 3.04 (medium) 4.08 (high)

About the "School building" parameter, the coastal area has the highest score, followed by plain and mountainous areas For coastal areas, the parameter "School building" is strongly correlated with the score of the "Physical conditions" dimension

"School building" is also the parameter that most primary schools consider to be the most important of the three parameters (54.29%) In this parameter, "Regular check on school buildings" was ranked the highest by many schools (32.86%), followed by

"Safety building codes" (31.43%) The "School building" parameter of the delta only has an average correlation with the "Physical conditions" dimension Primary schools in the plain area appreciate the role of "Regular check on school buildings" and

"Safety building codes" (both equal to 29.41%) than other variables in the "School building" parameter Primary schools in mountainous areas do not show a correlation between the "School building" parameter and the "Physical conditions" dimension

Here, the role of "Safety building codes" is rated the highest (55.56% of primary schools) As such, there are similarities between the three regions, most schools appreciate the importance of the safety check of classrooms and school buildings

From the school's point of view, the school is where gathering many people, and it can also become an emergency shelter so the level of safety of buildings is extremely important

The "Facilities and equipment" parameter has the highest score in the plains, followed by the mountainous and the coastal In the coastal area, the "Facilities and equipment" parameter has an average correlation with the score of the "Physical conditions" dimension Meanwhile, the plains and mountains show a high correlation

The importance of the "Regular check on facilities and equipment" variable is considered is the most important by the coastal schools (52.86% of schools) and the plain (47.06% of schools) In mountainous areas, the issue of "Emergency supplies" is considered by many schools to be the most important (55.56% schools), followed by

"Regular check on facilities and equipment" (44.44% schools) It can be seen that, in both parameters, most schools rank the inspection issues as the most important, this helps the school to maintain safety, detect risks early, overcome promptly

The "Sanitation conditions" parameter has the highest score in the plains, followed by the sea and the mountains Regarding the correlation between the

"Sanitation conditions" parameter and the "Physical conditions" dimension, the three areas have an average correlation The "Sanitation conditions" parameter is considered by many schools in the delta (52.94%) and in the mountainous (77.78%) to be the most important of the three parameters In the "Sanitation conditions" parameter, the coastal schools still consider the inspection as the most important, namely "Regular check on hazardous materials" In the plain area, the "Environmental protection campaign" variable is considered by many schools to be the most important issue In the mountainous areas, "Collected garbage" is considered by most of the schools (44.44%) as the most important, followed by the "Regular check on hazardous materials" (33.33%)

The average score of the dimension "Human resources" is highest in the low plains, followed by the mountainous and coastal areas All three areas show a high correlation between the scores of the "Human resources" criteria and the resilience to natural disasters (Table 3.4)

Table 3.4 The average score of the parameters in the "Human resources" of the three areas

Human Resources Teacher and Staff Students Guardians Coastal 3.84 (high) 3.75 (high) 3.38 (medium)

Low plain 3.97 (high) 4.15 (high) 3.51 (high)

The change of disaster resilience of primary schools from 2012 to 2019

Overall, the level of disaster resilience of primary schools after 7 years has increased in most criteria The average score increased from 3.23 (2012) to 3.33

(2019) Most parameters and criteria increase in points However, the dimensions

"Physical condition", and some indicators, including "Facilities", "Hygienic condition", "Teacher and Staff", "Parents", "Frequency of natural traditions" have been reduced in scores (Table 3.9, 3.10, and figure 3.6)

Table 3.9 The change in dimensions's score between 2012 - 2019

Table 3.10 The change in parameters score between 2012 - 2019

Severity of natural disasters 2.44 2.53 3.69 Frequency of natural disasters 2.29 2.26 -1.31

Figure 3.6 Dimensions and indicators score of 2012 (grey line) and 2019 (red line)

"Physical condition" is the only dimension that decreases from 2012 to 2019

It is strongly dependent on "Facilities" (r=0,652) and "Hygienic condition"

"School building" is the only indicator that has increased in score It is the result of the compliance with the school safety building regulations From 2012 to

2019, a number of new schools were built and remodeled in accordance with the Government's regulations In 2012, only 50% of schools had emergency exit but in

2019, 76.04% of schools had emergency exit door The proportion of schools meeting emergency shelter requirements increased from 58% in 2012 to 81.25% in

Figure 3.7 Improvement of variables of "School building"

The score of the 2019 “Facilities” parameter is lower than that of 2012 due to the problem of repairing equipment after natural disasters, and the installation and use of environmental protection devices The survey in 2019 showed that up to 44.78% of schools repaired equipment immediately after a natural disaster occurs below 10% (Figure 3.8) Failure to promptly replace devices immediately after a disaster can result in a disruption in education and become a challenge for teachers and students in meeting annual educational goals

Emergency exit doors Evacuation shelter

Figure 3.8 Percentage of equipment that is replaced or repaired immediately after a natural disaster occurs (2019)

The score of the parameter "Sanitation conditions" decreases 0.35 points

Although the primary schools in Da Nang have implemented very well the regulations on the organization of environmental protection programs, food hygiene, and safety, periodic inspection with dangerous equipment, there are up to

30 primary schools do not have a system to collect, reuse, and recycle waste in schools Moreover, there is a problem of waste sorting and collection only done at the source This means that school waste is sorted by sorting bins placed throughout the school But when collected by the environmental company, the garbage is put together This reduces the effectiveness of waste sorting at school

"Human resources" dimension has a slight increase This is mainly contributed by the "Student" parameter while both the "Teacher and Staff", and

The research in 2019 showed that nearly 98% of teachers were equipped with knowledge and awareness about disaster-related issues (up 5% compared to

2012), the percentage of teachers and staff affected by natural disasters is 2.08%

(compare to that of 18% in 2012) The 2012 research showed that nearly 90% of schools stressed the importance of disaster training for teachers but in 2019 only

78.13% Although the number of schools emphasizing the importance of this issue is similar (68 primary schools), the total number of schools studied in 2019 is 96, higher than in 2012 (76 primary schools) Therefore, the proportion of schools that emphasize the importance of disaster training for teachers and staff in 2019 is lower than in 2012 It is also the reason why the score of the "Teacher and Staff" parameter decreases

The "Student" parameter saw a significant increase from the 2012 average

(3.44 points) to the high in 2019 (3.86 points) Up to 94.79% of schools are equipped with knowledge about hazards and impacts of disaster damage to students

In particular, 67.7% of the school equips more than 75% of students in the school

Up to 86.46% of schools organize regular training courses on natural disasters for students and 64.58% of schools ensure that more than 50% of students participated in such training (higher than in 2012, yet to 50% of school) This shows that schools have paid more attention to linking theory and action through educational activities that equip students with disaster knowledge

64.46% of schools do not organize regular disaster programs or courses for students However, the school has a communication system between the school and family through SMS, Facebook, and Zalo which work very well, always updating information between the school and the family Along with 94.79% of schools popularizing disaster prevention plans for students and 98.96% of schools confirmed that parents have a supportive role in participating in activities related to natural disaster prevention of school However, 66.67% of schools assessed that

"Parents" did not play a significant role in disaster recovery at school (higher than in 2012) Therefore, the score of the "Parents" parameter of 2019 decreased sharply compared to 2012

The "Institutions issues" dimension gets higher scores in 2019 It is the result of the scores of the "Planning", "Management", and "Budget" parameters increasing compared to 2012

"Planning" is the parameter that achieved the highest score among the 15 assessment parameters in 2019 Primary schools in Da Nang city do very well in management and planning This is reflected in the fact that 100% of primary schools integrates disaster risk-related content into their school plans, regulations, and curriculum According to the regulations of the DoET of Da Nang City, schools must integrate natural disaster content into some typical subjects such as Social Nature, Science, Geography, and so on Moreover, schools are not only focusing on disaster prevention that has promoted disaster recovery, reflected by 97.92% of primary schools planning to recover from a disaster

The "Management" parameter of 2019 also has a higher score than 2012 A new point is that 95.83% of schools have a natural disaster warning system in the school, operating normally, well and very well It is a favorable condition for the provision of disaster-related information to students, staff and teachers in the school Disaster-related working groups were also established at 76.04% of primary schools

"Budget" Like in 2012, schools often do not have separate funds for disaster prevention or recovery Expenses for activities related to disaster preparedness organized within the school, in the community, and the cost of facilities management are deducted from the school's annual general budget The absence of a separate budget available for disaster preparedness has hindered schools in preventing, responding and recovering from disasters

The "External relationship" parameter has also been enhanced by tightening the relationship between the school and the government, and other organizations

All three parameters of "External relationship" have increased compared to 2012

However, the "Mobilizing fund" parameter is still the parameter with the lowest score, and the lowest of the 15 parameters This problem is probably due to the difficulty of schools in raising funds for disaster preparedness and remediation

Raising non-budgetary support from schools is quite difficult Funds for post- disaster recovery still depend mainly on the budget of DoET and local authorities

Like the 2012 research, the scores for the "Natural conditions" parameter for

2019 are still the lowest among the 5 parameters In recent years, Da Nang city has not been affected by any particularly serious natural disasters Nevertheless, the

"Frequency of natural disaster" is still at a high level However, according to the

Scenario of Climate Change and Sea Level Rise, by the end of the 21st century, Da Nang's temperature and rainfall will have significant changes (Table 3.11) (MONRE, 2016) At the same time, it leads to the change of natural disasters, about the time, frequency and intensity of natural disasters In particular, the activity of typhoons and tropical depressions tends to shift towards the end of the typhoon season, the period during which storm activity mainly recedes to the South Because

Da Nang is located in the central coastal region, when storms move southward, it still affects Da Nang Along with the increasing trend of climate change, natural disasters with frequency and intensity will become more unpredictable, harsh and more impactful

Table 3.11 Changes of temperature (oC), annual rainfall (%), and Sea level rise (cm) in Da Nang at the end of the 21 st century compared to the baseline period

4 CHAPTER 4 BUILDING A DISASTER PREPAREDNESS PLAN

4.1 Innovative approach to develop a disaster preparedness plan for the school

This research develops an innovative approach to developing a disaster preparedness plan The construction of a disaster preparedness plan for school consists of 7 steps, shown in the Figure 4.1

Figure 4.1 Steps to build disaster preparedness plan

 Step 1: Disaster resilience assessment Using the SDRA method to assess school disaster resilience Evaluate strengths and weaknesses in dimensions

(1) "Physical conditions", (2) “Human resources”, (3) "Institutional issues"

(4) "External relationship", and (5) "Natural conditions" Then, analyze the difference in the school's natural disaster resilience, the correlation between the parameters, and the dimensions

 Step 2: Developing solutions Selecting factors that have a strong correlation to the school's disaster resilience, those with low scores to propose solutions to improve the scores for those factors

 Step 3: Discussing with stakeholders Conducting group discussions with people who have a role in the school's disaster preparedness including teachers, staff, students, parents, local authorities, soldiers, and other social organizations to evaluate the proposed solutions The items that need to be assessed include feasibility, effectiveness, implementation time, priority, funding sources, and implementers of the solution

 Step 4: Disaster preparedness plan Based on the results of the evaluation of solutions, the force of selection, and devise an appropriate disaster prevention plan Disseminate disaster prevention plans to all school units, getting ready when natural disasters strikeout

 Step 5: Re-assessing the disaster resilience of school After a year, the disaster resilience of school is assessed again The results of this assessment will be used as a basis for developing activities to respond to natural disasters and CC

BUILDING A DISASTER PREPAREDNESS PLAN FOR SCHOOL 64 4.1 Innovative approach to develop a disaster preparedness plan for the school

Case studies in developing a disaster preparedness plan for schools

Based on natural disaster resilience, the study selected 3 primary schools representing 3 areas to develop a disaster preparedness plan for each school Table 4.1 is a list of schools selected to develop the solution

Table 4.1 List of selected schools for piloting disaster preparedness planning

Symbol District Area Disaster resilience score

TK25 Thanh Khe Coastal 2.99 Medium

2 Ngo Quyen CL36 Cam Le Lowplain 3.05 Medium

HV82 Hoa Vang Mountainous 3.55 High

Based on the results of the evaluation of natural disaster resilience combined with the current conditions of the school, the author proposes solutions to improve the school's natural disaster resilience These solutions were evaluated by school representatives (who are responsible for the school's disaster management) and representatives of the DoET based on the evaluation criteria including feasibility, effectiveness, implementation time, priority, funding sources, and implementers

After evaluating the criteria, the assessor will prioritize the solution to show which solution is most important and needs to be implemented immediately Table 1 in Appendix 6 explains the evaluation criteria Along with the evaluation of the school, the author also conducted interviews with students of 1 class at each school to see the level of knowledge and ability to respond to natural disasters of students

Based on these results, a disaster preparedness plan for the school is proposed

4.2.1 Develop a disaster preparedness plan for the school in coastal area - Doan Thi Diem primary school

Doan Thi Diem primary school (TK25) was selected to represent the coastal area to prepare a disaster preparedness plan TK25 is capable of coping with natural disasters at an average level Scores of the school's parameters and dimensions are shown in Appendix 5

Through interviews with students in grade 5/1 (46 students), most of them were able to answer simple concepts such as what natural disasters are, types of natural disasters affecting their lives (84.78%) Although Da Nang‟s DoET has stated that all primary students must complete swimming skills before graduating from primary schools, by the end of the first term of 5th grade, only 63.04% of 5th graders knew how to swim Besides, on the school side, there are still many issues that need to be improved

In fact, TK25 has no system of emergency doors or exits

The percentage of environmental protection devices installed and used in schools is less than 25%

The preparation of tools for emergencies was assessed by the school to be good, but in reality, the items were not much prepared, including raincoats and flashlights Drinking water and food are not stored This issue is also not appreciated for importance

Although the school has done a good job of disseminating content about natural disasters, providing knowledge and training about natural disasters for teachers and staff, students and parents have not been focused on this issue The school does not organize regular disaster programs or courses for students and parents, nor discuss disaster-related issues during regular parent meetings

Disaster preparedness and response plans which specify the specific roles of staff, teachers, students, and parents, and Disaster Recovery Plan after the occurrence of a disaster, are not taken seriously

Although activities related to disaster preparedness are organized, the provision of disaster-related information to students, staff and teachers in schools (through books, newspapers, the Internet, ) were not focused Disaster-related activity groups and regular group meetings involving staff, teachers, students in the school, and parents are also inactive

The school has no separate budget for protecting and preventing damage caused by natural disasters If the damage is caused by a natural disaster, the repair and restoration costs will be deducted from the school's general budget, usually the budget for regular equipment repair

TK25 does not focus on making use of the information-sharing network between its campus/retail facilities and the school with other schools or other scientific research facilities Although this can be a good opportunity for the development of the school's information system, enhance opportunities for cooperation and external support

Storms and floods are the two most severe natural disasters affecting schools

In November 2018, heavy rains caused 30cm floods causing the school to close for two days

Based on the aforementioned issues, a list of suggested solutions for the school is shown in Table 2 in Appendix 6 A meeting with representatives of TK34 and Thanh Khe's DoET was carried out on 10 December 2019, in TK34's meeting room The meeting was held from 8am to 11pm The results of the evaluation from the school and the DoET are shown in Table 17 and 18

Assessing the time frame for implementing the solutions

Solutions are assessed on the execution time to determine which solution will be implemented at which time and which solution can be implemented first

The results of the solution evaluation for Doan Thi Diem primary school show that 9/13 solutions are evaluated by the school as possible to be implemented within 1 year Meanwhile, DoET thinks that only 5 of these solutions can be implemented within a year (Table 4.2)

Table 4.2 Implementation time (year) for solutions in Doan Thi Diem primary school

For the "Physical Conditions" solution group, there was a consensus between the school and DoET when assessing the construction of emergency exits and the installation of environmental protection equipment that took a long time to put into practice This group of solutions also depends on the school's budget and planning

Particularly, the solution for disaster preparedness can be implemented within a shorter time frame, from 1-3 years according to the school's assessment, and from 3-5 years according to DoET

“Human resources” solutions are rated by DoET to be implemented and completed in the longest and the longest (over 5 years) Meanwhile, according to the school's assessment, the organization of training programs on natural disasters for students can be completed in about 1-3 years and the inclusion of contents of disaster prevention into meetings Parents can be completed within the year

"Institutional issues", the "External relationships", and "Natural conditions" solutions are evaluated by the school as possible to implement immediately and complete within 1 year However, DoET only agrees that disaster response action planning, activities, and Disaster-related groups, and devotes part of the budget to protect and prevent damage can be completed immediately The solution for developing an information-sharing network between the university and scientific research organizations must be completed within 1-3 years Not only that, but the solutions for Developing disaster lesson plans, and teaching first aid skills to students must also be completed after 5 years There is a clear difference of opinion between the school and Thanh Khe DoET, while the school can complete most of the solutions in the shortest time, DoET prioritizes implementation in a longer time frame

The role of participating in the solutions

- The role of teachers in implementing disaster preparedness plan

Matrix of Learning Outcomes for the Master's thesis

Appendix 1: Matrix of Learning Outcomes for the Master's thesis

Program learning outcomes (PLO) of MCCD Results of the Master thesis

Result 1 Result 2 PLO1: Accumulating and mastering the basic knowledge on principles of

Marxism - Leninism, Political Theory and Ideology of Ho Chi Minh; and general knowledge about administration and management

PLO2: Mastering the fundamental, interdisciplinary knowledge and methodologies to assess and address actual problems (fate and features) related to CC (climate change) mitigation, adaptation for sustainable development at global, national and local levels

PLO3: Understanding and developing systematic thinking; necessary knowledge on science, technology, innovation and governance related to CC response for development; identifying, analyzing, assessing and forecasting the issues related to CC and CCR (climate change and response); predicting the developing trend of CC science

PLO4: Applying knowledge to solve the problems in CC and CCR: planning and approaching the works in field of CC; proposing the initiatives as well as the researches on CC; implementing the solutions on science, technology, mechanism, policy and finance for CCR and development

PLO5: Having skills of cooperation with personal, agencies, organizations domestically and internationally to CC issues, communication in works, projects on CC; and organizing, managing and administrating advanced career development

PLO6: Accumulating soft skills to self-directed and adapt to competitive working environment such as English proficiency (at level 4/6 according to

English competencies Framework for Vietnam), Japanese communication skills; having skills on time management; using the basic computer skills proficiently; working and researching independently; having skills of research and development; and using technologies creatively in academic and professional fields

PLO7: Dynamic, confident, persistent, enthusiastic, and risk-taking and management ✓ ✓

PLO8: Having social/community's responsibility and professional morality, especially for the scientific research results; being able to adapt to multicultural environment, ensure the harmony between the stakeholders,

CCR and development; having good social morality, assist the vulnerable people to climate change; compliance with the law; discipline at work and positive lifestyle; having good attitude to their career in climate change response for sustainable development

PLO9: Having responsibility for researching, creating new knowledge, and offering new ideas on climate change response in different complex situations; adapting and guiding other people and making expert decisions on climate change response; managing research, having high responsibility in learning in order to develop professional knowledge, and creating new ideas in new process; and having good life-long learning capacity

Result 1: Disaster resilience level of primary schools in Da Nang city;

Result 2: Innovative approach to developing disaster preparedness for primary schools in Da Nang city.

General information of 97 primary schools in Da Nang city

District School names Symbol Construction

Ly Cong Uan HC1 2006 Coastal 70 7 42.11 43

Le Quy Don HC2 1997 Coastal 47 7 36.82 29

Hoang Van Thu HC7 1989 Coastal 41 6 26.97 26

Tran Thi Ly HC10 2009 Coastal 34 6 40.03 20

Ong Ich Khiem HC11 1982 Coastal 34 6 39.13 20

Tran Van On HC12 1985 Coastal 73 8 39.02 44

Ly Tu Trong HC13 1982 Coastal 31 10 35.67 26

Phan Dang Luu HC16 2003 Coastal 44 10 36.50 29

Le Dinh Chinh HC17 2017 Coastal 37 6 37.65 21

Vo Thi Sau HC18 2000 Coastal 40 6 34.43 25

Thanh Tran Cao Van TK19 2017 Coastal 68 9 33.98 52

District School names Symbol Construction

Khe Dinh Bo Linh TK20 1997 Coastal 45 8 36.87 38

Dung Si Thanh Khe TK22 1996 Coastal 33 6 37.34 20

Le Van Tam TK24 2010 Coastal 44 7 37.59 27

Doan Thi Diem TK25 1997 Coastal 45 7 41.00 29

Nguyen Ba Ngoc TK26 1997 Coastal 28 5 35.80 18

Dien Bien Phu TK27 1992 Coastal 53 6 41.38 31

Nguyen Trung Truc TK28 1997 Coastal 31 11 36.33 16

Huynh Ngoc Hue TK29 1997 Coastal 50 7 42.30 31

Le Quang Sung TK30 2005 Coastal 44 7 36.64 8

Be Van Dang TK31 1986 Coastal 56 7 40.24 32

Ha Huy Tap TK32 2001 Coastal 39 7 37.28 25

Nguyen Binh Khiem TK34 1992 Coastal 54 7 38.55 29

Dien Hong CL35 1998 Low plain 45 5 37.46 30

Ngo Quyen CL36 2012 Low plain 48 7 37.66 30

Hoang Du Khuong CL37 1996 Low plain 52 6 41.89 32

Thai Thi Boi CL38 1997 Low plain 48 7 37.98 33

Tran Nhan Tong CL39 2002 Low plain 36 6 40.12 26

Tran Dai Nghia CL40 2010 Low plain 42 6 48.79 30

Tran Van Du CL41 2010 Low plain 45 5 37.46 33

District School names Symbol Construction

Ong Ich Duong CL42 2009 Low plain 40 5 36.82 23

Nguyen Nhu Hanh CL43 1964 Coastal 35 4 36.35 25

Ton Duc Thang CL44 2017 Coastal 35 6 38.11 25

Hai Ba Trung ST47 1998 Coastal 49 7 37.96 31

Nguyen Phan Vinh ST48 2015 Coastal 35 12 34.82 23

Dinh Tien Hoang ST50 1999 Coastal 20 6 27.50 12

Nguyen Thai Hoc ST51 1999 Coastal 30 11 32.58 18

Luong The Vinh ST53 2004 Coastal 34 13 34.87 22

Tran Quoc Toan ST54 1993 Coastal 42 16 31.27 28

Nguyen Tri Phuong ST55 1997 Coastal 52 8 42.10 32

To Vinh Dien ST56 2002 Coastal 36 6 36.43 25

Ngo Gia Tu ST57 1985 Coastal 55 16 38.35 33

Nguyen Duy Trinh NH58 1999 Coastal 34 6 35.65 22

Le Ba Trinh NH60 2005 Coastal 28 5 36.44 22

Tran Quang Dieu NH61 1998 Coastal 46 6 38.22 30

Pham Hong Thai NH62 1988 Coastal 38 6 34.24

Le Van Hien NH63 2012 Coastal 31 6 33.62 24

District School names Symbol Construction

Mai Dang Chon NH64 1999 Coastal 41 12 37.28 27

To Hien Thanh NH65 2002 Coastal 30 6 36.53 23

Ngo Si Lien LC66 1997 Coastal 41 7 41.70 26

Phan Phu Tien LC67 2003 Coastal 52 7 39.95 31

Vo Thi Sau LC68 2005 Coastal 39 7 40.63 21

Tran Binh Trong LC69 1982 Coastal 30 6 33.62 20

Trung Nu Vuong LC70 1997 Coastal 45 6 35.84 28

Nguyen Duc Canh LC73 2002 Coastal 39 10 33.70 28

Trieu Thi Trinh LC76 1998 Coastal 32 8 32.86 26

Bui Thi Xuan LC77 1998 Coastal 45 5 42.71 34

Nguyen Van Troi LC78 1982 Coastal 58 8 41.37 38

Lam Quang Thu HV82 1998 Mountainous 47 8 31.07 31

Hoa Son 1 HV85 1997 Low plain 37 8 29.39 26

District School names Symbol Construction

Hoa Son 2 HV86 1998 Low plain 39 5 33.85 24

Hoa Bac HV87 2009 Low plain 30 11 15.80 24

Hoa Chau HV88 2001 Low plain 27 7 29.73 7

Le Kim Lang HV89 2001 Low plain 35 7 30.86 23

Hoa Phuoc 1 HV90 2003 Low plain 25 9 28.93 18

Hoa Phuoc 2 HV91 2000 Low plain 30 7 31.60 25

Hoa Lien 2 HV95 1999 Low plain 32 12 30.18 25

Hoa Ninh HV96 1998 Low plain 30 6 25.43 21

Survey on disaster resilience of primary schools

Bảng câu hỏi khảo sát Khả năng chống chịu rủi ro thiên tai trong trường tiểu học

M c ch c a b ng c u h i n y nh m i u tra v c c hoạt ộng ph ng ch ng v gi m thi u r i ro thi n tai trong tr ng h c Nghi n c u n y ch tr ng n c c loại thi n tai kh h u nh b o l l t n c bi n d ng m a l n g y sạt lở C c loại thi n tai kh c nh ộng t n i l a phun v c c thi n tai v a ch t kh ng c c p n trong nghi n c u n y T t c nh ng th ng tin thu th p trong b ng c u h i n y ch d ng cho m c ch nghi n c u c nh n m kh ng chia sẻ cho bên th ba T i mong r ng nghi n c u n y s g p ph n th c y s ph t tri n c a gi o d c ph ng ch ng v gi m thi u r i ro thi n tai ở Vi t Nam

Ch n th nh c m n s h p t c c a qu Tr ng

Th ng tin iên c của Trường:

U C u tr l i kh ng d a v o ki n c nh n m c n ại di n cho tr ng h c

V tr c a tr ng v ng bi n
 v ng n i v ng ồng b ng

H nh th c t ch c dạy h c bu i ng y
 1 bu i/ngày kh c

S gi o vi n S nh n vi n S l p v h c sinh

S t ng (c a t a nh c trong tr ng)

S ồ ph ng h c v c c t a nh trong tr ng h c ch i n ảng c u hỏi

B ng c u h i n y bao gồm ph n i u ki n c s v t ch t, Ngu n nh n l c, h ch ,

C c m i quan h b n ngo i v i u ki n t nhi n M i ph n bao gồm m c v i nhi u c u h i nh m i u tra v gi o d c ph ng ch ng v gi m thi u r i ro thi n tai trong tr ng h c

Danh s ch ph n v c c m c t ng ng

Phần 1: Đi u ki n cơ sở vật chất

Các mối quan h bên ngoài

Phần 5: Đi u ki n tự nhiên

3.1 K hoạch 4.1 H p tác 5.1 M c ộ nghiêm tr ng c a thiên tai 1.2 Thi t b 2.2 H c sinh 3.2 Qu n lý 4 Tr ng h c và cộng ồng

5.2 M c ộ th ng xuyên x y ra c a thiên tai

2.3 Ph huynh 3.3 Ngân quỹ 4.3 Gây quỹ M i tr ng xung quanh in vui l ng i n v o b ng c u h i theo t ng b c c th ( em v d b n d i)

B c 1 (A) M i ph n c m c bao gồm c u h i Đ i v i m i c u h i s c nhi u l a ch n t 1 n t ng ng v i m c ộ t th p (ngh o n n kh ng c kh ng tồn tại) n cao (nhi u t t) (B) Sau khi ch n c c m c ộ c a c u h i th x p hạng v n t ra trong c u h i trong c ng 1 m c theo t m quan tr ng c a n i v i hi n trạng c a tr ng h c m c ộ t 1 (kh ng quan tr ng) n (quan tr ng nh t) Đi u n y cho ph p ng i i n th ng tin v o b ng c u h i c th quy t nh v n n o c n c c n nh c xem x t kỹ h n c c v n kh c trong c ng một m c u tr nh n y c th c hi n t y v o c i m ri ng c a m i tr ng 


V d B c 1 ph n 1-Đi u ki n c sở v t ch t m c 1.1-C u tr c tr ng h c

B c V trong 1 ph n c m c n n b c A v b c B s c th c hi n theo tr nh t gi ng nhau trong to n bộ b ng c u h i Cu i c ng m i m c c a một ph n s c x p hạng t y v o t m quan tr ng c a n i v i c i m c a tr ng (b c n y t ng t nh b c B)

V d B c ph n 1-Đi u ki n c sở v t ch t

hần I – Đi u ki n cơ sở vật chất ấu tr c trường học

1.1.1 M c ộ ki m tra nh gi t nh h nh an to n c a ph ng h c v c c t a nh trong tr ng 


1.1 S d ng c a tho t hi m d nh ri ng trong tr ng h p c thi n tai x y ra (ngoại tr c a ch nh) 


1.1.4 M c ộ an to n c a ph ng tr n an to n trong tr ng h p c thi n tai x y ra

1.1.5 Thi t hại v m t c sở v t ch t x y d ng do thi n tai g y ra trong n m 18

Có nh h ởng nh ng kh ng nghiêm tr ng

*Vui l ng x p hạng t m quan tr ng c a c c v n trong c u h i tr n t 1 n (

R t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

1 .1 C ng t c ki m tra nh k i v i thi t b dạy h c 


1 h n tr m c a thi t b dạy h c b nh h ởng do thi n tai g y ra trong n m 18

1 C ng t c chu n b d ng c d ng trong tr ng h p kh n c p (v d t i kh n c p d tr th c n v n c u ng n pin m n )

1 .4 h n tr m c a c c thi t b c thay m i ho c c s a ch a ngay sau khi c thi n tai x y ra 


1 h n tr m c c thi t b b o v m i tr ng c l p t v s d ng trong tr ng (v d nh c c thi t b ti t ki m n ng l ng ti t ki m n c )

*Vui l ng x p hạng t m quan tr ng c a c c v n trong c u h i tr n t 1 n (

R t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

1 Đi u ki n v sinh v m i tr ng trong tr ng h c

1 .1 T ch c c c ch ng tr nh hay hoạt ộng b o v m i tr ng cho h c sinh

1 T ch c ki m tra nh k i v i c c thi t b hay ch t li u g y nguy hi m ( ng ng d n gas b nh ch a ch y n i ch a h a ch t ) b o m an to n n u c thi n tai x y ra

1 Đi u ki n m b o v sinh an to n th c ph m cho h c sinh trong tr ng

1 .4 h n tr m s l ng r c th i h ng ng y c thu gom v ng n i quy nh

1.3.5 H th ng thu gom v t i s d ng hay t i ch c c loại r c th i trong tr ng (v d nh t i s d ng b t ch b t bi gi y qua s d ng d ng gi y qua s d ng làm hộp ng b t )

*Vui l ng x p hạng t m quan tr ng c a c c v n trong c u h i tr n t 1 n (

R t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

**Cu i ph n n y vui l ng x p hạng theo t m quan tr ng c a c c ph n m c (1.1 1

1 ) t 1 n ( r t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

C u tr c tr ng h c Thi t b tr ng h c Đi u ki n v sinh và môi tr ng trong tr ng h c

2 hần – guồn nh n ực Gi o viên v nh n viên trường học

1.1 h n tr m c a gi o vi n v nh n vi n trong tr ng ch u nh h ởng do thi n tai g y ra trong n m 18

1 h n tr m c a gi o vi n v nh n vi n trong tr ng c trang b ki n th c v hi m h a v t c ộng c a thi n tai

1 T ch c c c ch ng tr nh hay kh a o tạo th ng k v thi n tai cho gi o vi n và nhân viên

1.4 h n tr m c a gi o vi n v nh n vi n trong tr ng tham gia c c kh a o tạo nh k v thi n tai

1 h bi n k hoạch li n quan n c ng t c ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai cho gi o vi n v nh n vi n trong tr ng

*Vui l ng x p hạng t m quan tr ng c a c c v n trong c u h i tr n t 1 n (

R t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

1 h n tr m c a h c sinh ch u nh h ởng do thi n tai g y ra trong n m 18 


h n tr m c a h c sinh c trang b ki n th c v hi m h a v t c ộng c a thiên tai 


T ch c c c ch ng tr nh hay kh a o tạo th ng k v thi n tai cho h c sinh

4 h n tr m c a h c sinh tham gia c c ch ng tr nh kh a o tạo nh k v thi n tai 


h bi n k hoạch li n quan n c ng t c ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai cho h c sinh 


*Vui l ng x p hạng t m quan tr ng c a c c v n trong c u h i tr n t 1 n (

R t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

h huynh học sinh gười ảo tr học sinh

1 S l n c c cuộc h p th ng k c a hội h huynh h c sinh c th o lu n c c v n li n quan n thi n tai

T ch c c c ch ng tr nh hay kh a o tạo th ng k v thi n tai cho ph huynh h c sinh

2.3.3 H th ng li n lạc gi a tr ng v gia nh trong tr ng h p kh n c p 


4 Tr ng c a qu v c ph bi n k hoạch li n quan n c ng t c ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai cho ph huynh h c sinh k p th i ph i h p trong tr ng h p c thi n tai x y ra

Vai tr v s tham gia v h tr c a ph huynh h c sinh v o c c hoạt ộng li n quan n nội dung ph ng ch ng thi n tai c a tr ng

*Vui l ng x p hạng t m quan tr ng c a c c v n trong c u h i tr n t 1 n (

R t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

**Cu i ph n n y vui l ng x p hạng theo t m quan tr ng c a c c ph n m c ( 1 ) t 1 n ( r t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

Giáo viên và nhân viên tr ng h c

H c sinh Ph huynh h c sinh ng i b o tr h c sinh

hần – Thể chế ế ho ch

1.1 C ng t c lồng gh p c c nội dung li n quan n ph ng ch ng thi n tai v o k hoạch hoạt ộng c a tr ng

1 C ng t c lồng gh p c c nội dung li n quan n ph ng ch ng thi n tai v o quy nh c a tr ng

1 C ng t c lồng gh p c c nội dung li n quan n ph ng ch ng thi n tai v o ch ng tr nh h c 


1.4 K hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai trong quy nh vai tr c th c a nh n vi n gi o vi n h c sinh v ph huynh

1 K hoạch ph c hồi sau khi c thi n tai x y ra (v d nh thay i gi h c gi a c c kh i l p thay i l i tho t hi m )

*Vui l ng x p hạng t m quan tr ng c a c c v n trong c u h i tr n t 1 n (

R t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

3.2.1 Hi u qu c a h th ng c nh b o thi n tai trong tr ng (v d nh c p nh t c c th ng tin li n quan n thi n tai ở a ph ng l ch thi n tai x y ra ở a ph ng danh bạ i n thoại d ng trong tr ng h p kh n c p )

Không có h th ng c nh báo

Cung c p c c th ng tin li n quan n thi n tai cho h c sinh nh n vi n v gi o vi n trong tr ng (th ng qua s ch b o mạng internet )

T ch c c c hoạt ộng li n quan n nội dung ph ng ch ng thi n tai (v d nh t ch c c c chuy n tham quan kh o s t ở a ph ng di n t p khi c thi n tai x y ra thi v tranh vi t v n k chuy n v c c ch li n quan n thi n tai )

3.2.4 Thành l p Nh m hoạt ộng li n quan n thi n tai v t ch c h p nh m th ng k v i s tham gia c a nh n vi n gi o vi n h c sinh trong tr ng v ph huynh

T ch c c c ch ng tr nh hay kh a o tạo th ng k c nội dung li n quan n ph ng ch ng thi n tai cho Nh m hoạt ộng li n quan n thi n tai trong tr ng

*Vui l ng x p hạng t m quan tr ng c a c c v n trong c u h i tr n t 1 n (

R t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

(17% chi th ng xuy n (b ng s ) ồng) 1 h n tr m c a ng n s ch chi th ng xuy n n m 18 d nh cho c c hoạt ộng li n quan n nội dung ph ng ch ng thi n tai t ch c trong tr ng (v d nh mua sách/báo có nội dung li n quan n thi n tai t ch c c c cuộc thi vi t v v i nội dung ph ng ch ng thi n tai )

L a ch n Vui l ng cung c p s ti n ch nh x c b ng s (n u c ) ồng)

h n tr m c a ng n s ch chi th ng xuy n n m 18 d nh cho c c hoạt ộng li n quan n nội dung ph ng ch ng thi n tai c t ch c trong cộng ồng (v d c c hoạt ộng c s tham gia c a cộng ồng ho c c c t ch c kh c trong cộng ồng )

Vui l ng cung c p s ti n ch nh x c b ng s (n u c ) ồng) h n tr m c a ng n s ch chi th ng xuy n n m 18 d nh cho hoạt ộng thay th s a ch a tr ng h c sau khi thi n tai x y ra

Vui l ng cung c p s ti n ch nh x c b ng s (n u c ) ồng) 4 h n tr m c a ng n s ch chi th ng xuy n n m 18 d nh cho qu n l c sở v t ch t v thi t b dạy h c (t ch c ki m tra nh k nh gi tr ng h c )

Vui l ng cung c p s ti n ch nh x c b ng s (n u c ) ồng) h n tr m c a ng n s ch chi th ng xuy n n m 18 d nh h tr cho h c sinh c ho n c nh kh kh n

Vui l ng cung c p s ti n ch nh x c b ng s (n u c ) ồng)

*Vui l ng x p hạng t m quan tr ng c a c c v n trong c u h i tr n t 1 n (

R t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

**Cu i ph n n y vui l ng x p hạng theo t m quan tr ng c a c c ph n m c ( 1 ) t 1 n ( r t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

K hoạch Qu n lý Ngân quỹ

hần – c mối quan h bên ngoài H p t c v i c c t ch c kh c

4.1.1 S l n h p th ng k gi a tr ng v h ng gi o d c v o tạo ở a ph ng c th o lu n c c v n li n quan n thi n tai

4.1 S l n h p th ng k gi a tr ng v i UBND a ph ng c th o lu n c c v n li n quan n thi n tai

4.1 Mạng l i chia sẻ th ng tin gi a c c c sở lẻ chi nh nh c a tr ng v tr ng v i c c tr ng kh c ho c c c c sở nghi n c u khoa h c kh c

4.1.4 Hoạt ộng c a h th ng c nh b o thi n tai t Ch nh quy n a ph ng n tr ng 


4.1.5 Hi u qu c a vi c h p t c v i Ch nh quy n a ph ng khi c thi n tai x y ra 


*Vui l ng x p hạng t m quan tr ng c a c c v n trong c u h i tr n t 1 n (

R t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

4 M i quan h gi a tr ng v cộng ồng

4 .1 Tr ng c a qu v c ch cộng ồng d n c g n nh t bao xa

4 Tr ng c a u v c th s d ng l m n i tr n cho ng i d n a ph ng trong tr ng h p c thi n tai x y ra kh ng

4 Tr ng c a qu v c th ng xuy n tham gia v o c c ch ng tr nh v hoạt ộng li n quan n nội dung ph ng ch ng thi n tai do a ph ng t ch c (v d nh c c hoạt ộng di n t p khi c thi n tai x y ra tham quan kh o s t a ph ng lao ộng v sinh sau thiên tai, )

4 .4 Tr ng c a qu v c nh n c h tr t ội l c l ng c u hộ kh n c p c a a ph ng khi c thi n tai x y ra

4 Vai tr v s tham gia c a tr ng trong k hoạch qu n l thi n tai c a cộng ồng a ph ng

*Vui l ng x p hạng t m quan tr ng c a c c v n trong c u h i tr n t 1 n (

R t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

4 .1 T ng s ti n h tr c a Ch nh quy n d nh ri ng cho c c hoạt ộng li n quan n nội dung ph ng ch ng thi n tai trong n m 18

Vui l ng cung c p s ti n ch nh x c b ng s ồng)

4 T ng s ti n h tr c a Hội ph huynh h c sinh sau khi c thi n tai x y ra trong n m 18

Vui l ng cung c p s ti n ch nh x c b ng s ồng)

4 T ng s ti n h tr c a cộng ồng a ph ng sau khi c thi n tai x y ra trong n m 18

L a ch n Vui l ng cung c p s ti n ch nh x c b ng s ồng)

4 .4 T ng s ti n h tr c a c c t ch c phi Ch nh h t ch c c nh n v c c t ch c kh c sau khi c thi n tai x y ra trong n m 18

Vui l ng cung c p s ti n ch nh x c b ng s ồng)

4 Thay i ng n s ch cho c c hoạt ộng li n quan n nội dung ph ng ch ng thi n tai (chuy n i ng n s ch t c c hoạt ộng kh c sang ng n s ch ph t sinh do c c hoạt ộng li n quan n nội dung ph ng ch ng thi n tai)

Vui l ng cung c p s ti n ch nh x c b ng s ồng)

*Vui l ng x p hạng t m quan tr ng c a c c v n trong c u h i tr n t 1 n (

R t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

**Cu i ph n n y vui l ng x p hạng theo t m quan tr ng c a c c ph n m c (4.1 4

4 ) t 1 n ( r t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

M i quan h gi a tr ng và cộng ồng

hần – Đi u ki n tự nhiên


M c nghiêm trọng của thiên tai

*Vui l ng x p hạng t m quan tr ng c a c c v n trong c u h i tr n t 1 n (

R t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

M c thường xuyên xảy ra của thiên tai

*Vui l ng x p hạng t m quan tr ng c a c c v n trong c u h i tr n t 1 n (

R t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

1 V tr c a tr ng trong khu v c nguy hi m 


Khu v c ít x y ra thiên tai

Kho ng c ch t tr ng n con s ng su i bi n g n nh t 


Kho ng c ch t tr ng n UBND ph ng x 


4 Kho ng c ch t tr ng n ồn c ng an a ph ng 


Kho ng c ch t tr ng n Trạm y t x ph ng 


*Vui l ng x p hạng t m quan tr ng c a c c v n trong c u h i tr n t 1 n (

R t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

**Cu i ph n n y vui l ng x p hạng theo t m quan tr ng c a c c ph n m c ( 1 ) t 1 n ( r t quan tr ng 1 kh ng quan tr ng)

M c ộ nghiêm tr ng c a thiên tai

M c ộ th ng xuyên x y ra c a thiên tai

Xác nh n c a Hi u tr ởng ảng i t kê nh ng m c cần nh gi nh cho trường học

THÔNG TIN Miêu t Đi u ki n c sở v t ch t

C a l n Bàn gh Thi t b tr ng h c c sở hạ t ng

Ch ng tr nh hoạt ộng v thiên tai

Li t k c c loại thi n tai c nh h ởng n tr ng

Tr ng c a qu v lồng ghép nội dung ph ng ch ng thi n tai v o m n h c n o

Tr ng c a qu v t ch c c c kh a h c ngoại kh a n o li n quan n ph ng ch ng thi n tai

Tr ng qu v chu n b ồ d ng g cho tr ng h p kh n c p (v d nh loa ph t ồ c u hộ n pin m n th c n n c u ng d tr )

N u r c c hoạt ộng kh c c li n quan n ph ng ch ng thi n tai

Giải th ch thêm cho ảng c u hỏi i u tra hần – Đi u ki n cơ sở vật chất

1.1 M c ộ p d ng c c ti u chu n quy nh v x y d ng an to n tr ng h c

Kém: 1- % c c ti u chu n c b n c p d ng
 nh th ng: 26- % c c ti u chu n c p d ng
 t: 1-7 % c c ti u chu n c p d ng

Kém: c nh ng k s d ng c
 nh th ng: c s d ng nh ng h n n m ch a c tu s a
 t: s d ng th ng xuy n v c tu s a trong kho ng - n m trở lại

R t t t: s d ng th ng xuy n v c tu s a theo nh k (1- n m)

Kém: ch ch cho d i ng i v kh ng an to n d b s p do gi mạnh hay b o nh th ng: ch cho d i ng i tr n c kh n ng b s p n u b o l n x y ra t: ch cho kho ng 4 ng i tr n r t kh b s p ngay c khi c b o l n x y ra

R t t t: ch cho h n 4 ng i r t an to n v ch a b s p l n n o

1.1 M c ộ b nh h ởng c a c c t a nh do thi n tai n m 18 g y ra


R t nghi m tr ng: b s p ho n to n


Nghi m tr ng: b n t t ng ho c b s p 1 ph n


C nh h ng nh ng kh ng nghi m tr ng: c a s v c a ch nh b ph h ng
 nh h ng t: ch b ng p v kh ng nh h ởng n c u tr c b n trong (kh ng g y m c n t hay h h ng)

1 Thi t b d ng c c u hộ ph c v trong tr ng h p kh n c p


Kém: ch cho 1- % h c sinh v gi o vi n trong tr ng
 nh th ng: ch cho 6- % h c sinh v gi o vi n trong tr ng t: ch cho 1-7 % h c sinh v gi o vi n trong tr ng


R t t t: cho 76-1 % h c sinh v gi o vi n trong tr ng

Đi u ki n v sinh m i trường trong trường học

1.3.3 M c ộ p d ng c c ti u chu n b o m v sinh an to n th c ph m do Bộ t quy nh

Kém: 1- % c c ti u chu n c b n c p d ng
 nh th ng: 6- % c c ti u chu n c p d ng
 t: 1-7 % c c ti u chu n c p d ng

1 S l ng r c th i c t i s d ng ho c t i ch

Kém: 1- % s l ng r c th i c t i s d ng ho c t i ch 
 nh th ng: 6- % s l ng r c th i c t i s d ng ho c t i ch t: 1-7 % s l ng r c th i c t i s d ng ho c t i ch 


R t t t: 76-1 % s l ng r c th i c t i s d ng ho c t i ch hần – guồn nh n ực Gi o viên v nh n viên trường học

1 h bi n k hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai cho gi o vi n v nh n vi n trong tr ng

Kém: ch c c gi o vi n v nh n vi n trong ban l nh ạo nh tr ng hi u r v k hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai c a tr ng
 nh th ng: kho ng % gi o vi n v nh n vi n n m r nh ng kh ng th ng xuy n c p nh t v k hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai c a tr ng t: kho ng -8 % gi o vi n v nh n vi n n m r v th ng xuy n c p nh t v k hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai c a tr ng


R t t t: kho ng 81-1 % gi o vi n v nh n vi n n m r v th ng xuy n c p nh t v k hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai c a tr ng

h bi n k hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai cho h c sinh trong tr ng


Kém: ch c c h c sinh trong ban l nh ạo l p hi u r v k hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai c a tr ng
 nh th ng: kho ng % h c sinh n m r nh ng kh ng th ng xuy n c p nh t v k hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai c a tr ng
 t: kho ng -8 % h c sinh n m r v th ng xuy n c p nh t v k hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai c a tr ng


R t t t: kho ng 81-1 % h c sinh n m r v th ng xuy n c p nh t v k hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai c a tr ng

M c ộ li n lạc gi a nh tr ng v gia nh trong tr ng h p kh n c p

Kém: th nh tho ng kh ng th ng xuy n
 nh th ng: ch ngay khi c thi n tai x y ra
 t: tr c v ngay khi c thi n tai x y ra

R t t t: tr c trong v sau khi c thi n tai x y ra
 4 h bi n k hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai cho ph huynh

Kém: ch nh m ph huynh trong ban l nh ạo Hội ph huynh h c sinh hi u r v k hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai c a tr ng
 nh th ng: kho ng % ph huynh n m r nh ng kh ng th ng xuy n c p nh t v k hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai c a tr ng t: kho ng -8 % ph huynh n m r v th ng xuy n c p nh t v k hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai c a tr ng


R t t t: 81-1 % ph huynh n m r v th ng xuyên c p nh t v k hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai c a tr ng S hoạt ộng c li n quan n nội dung ph ng ch ng thi n tai c a tr ng c s tham gia h tr c a ph huynh h c sinh

Kém: 1- % s hoạt ộng
 nh th ng: 6- % s hoạt ộng t: 1-7 % s hoạt ộng


R t t t: 76-1 % s hoạt ộng hần – Thể chế ế ho ch

1.1 M c ộ lồng gh p c c nội dung li n quan n ph ng ch ng thi n tai v o k hoạch c a tr ng Kém: 1- % s hoạt ộng trong k hoạch c a tr ng c lồng gh p


B nh th ng 6- % s hoạt ộng trong k hoạch c a tr ng c lồng gh p


T t 1-7 % s hoạt ộng trong k hoạch c a tr ng c lồng gh p

R t t t 76-1 % s hoạt ộng trong k hoạch c a tr ng c lồng gh p
 1 M c ộ lồng gh p c c nội dung li n quan n ph ng ch ng thi n tai v o quy nh c a tr ng

K m 1- % s hoạt ộng trong quy nh c a tr ng c lồng gh p


B nh th ng 6- % s hoạt ộng trong quy nh c a tr ng c lồng gh p t: 1-7 % s hoạt ộng trong quy nh c a tr ng c lồng gh p


R t t t: 76-1 % s hoạt ộng trong quy nh c a tr ng c lồng gh p

1 M c ộ lồng gh p c c nội dung liên quan n ph ng ch ng thi n tai v o ch ng tr nh h c c a tr ng

Kém: 1- % s m n h c c lồng gh p
 nh th ng: 6- % s m n h c c lồng gh p t: 1-7 % s m n h c c lồng gh p


3.1.4 Tính hi u qu c a vi c ti n h nh k hoạch ph ng ch ng v i ph v i thi n tai


The list of Dimension, parameter, and variables used to assess the school's disaster resilience

1.1 School buildings 1.1.1 Regular check on school buildings

1.1.2 Safety building codes
 1.1.3 Emergency exit door
 1.1.4 Evacuation shelter 1.1.5 Damage of infrastructure by disaster 1.2 Facilities and equipment

1.2.1 Regular check on facilities and equipment 1.2.2 Damage of facilities and equipment by disaster 1.2.3 Emergency supplies (emergency bag, storage food, water ) 1.2.4 Renovation/repair damaged facilities and equipment

1.2.5 Eco-facilities/equipment system 1.3 Sanitation conditions

1.3.1 Environmental protection campaign 1.3.2 Regular check on hazardous materials 1.3.3 Food safety conditions

2.1.1 Affected by disaster
 2.1.2 Knowledge about disaster
 2.1.3 Disaster training program for teachers and staff 2.1.4 Participation in disaster program

2.1.5 Sharing of disaster preparedness plan for teachers and staff 2.2 Students 2.2.1 Affected by disaster

2.2.2 Knowledge about disaster 2.2.3 Disaster training program for students 2.2.4 Participation in disaster program 2.2.5 Sharing of disaster preparedness plan for students 2.3 Parents 2.3.1 Parent-Teacher association meeting

2.3.2 Disaster training program for parents 2.3.3 School-home emergency notification 2.3.4 Sharing of disaster preparedness plan for parents 2.3.5 Involvement of parents in disaster activities

3.1 Planning 3.1.1 Incorporation of disaster components into school planning

3.1.2 Incorporation of disaster components into school regulation 3.1.3 Incorporation of disaster components into school syllabus 3.1.4 Preparedness and emergency management plan

3.1.5 Recovery management plan 3.2 Management 3.2.1 School early warning system

3.2.2 Disaster information 3.2.3 Disaster activities
3.2.4 Disaster groups 3.2.5 Training for disaster groups

3.3 Budget 3.3.1 Budget allocated for disaster training activities

3.3.2 Budget allocated for disaster preparedness and response 3.3.3 Budget allocated for renovation/repair/rebuilding after disaster 3.3.4 Budget allocated for monitoring

3.3.5 Budget allocated for supporting the students who have special need

4.1 Collaboration 4.1.1 Meeting with local DoET

4.1.2 Meeting with local people committee 4.1.3 Communication system

4.1.4 Early warning from local government 4.1.5 Collaboration with local government 4.2 Relationship between school and community

4.2.1 Location of school in local community 4.2.2 School used as evacuation shelter for local community 4.2.3 Participation of school in disaster activities held by local community 4.2.4 Support from local community

4.2.5 School involvement in disaster management plan of local community 4.3 Mobilizing fund 4.3.1 Fund from local government

4.3.2 Fund from parent association 4.3.3 Fund from local community 4.3.4 Fund from other organizations 4.3.5 Shifting budget

5.1.2 Storms (strong winds)
 5.1.3 Heat waves


5.1.4 Sea intrusion
 5.1.5 Drought (water scarcity)
 5.2 Frequency of natural hazards

5.2.1 Floods
 5.2.2 Storms (strong winds)
 5.2.3 Heat waves

5.2.4 Sea intrusion
 5.2.5 Drought (water scarcity)
 5.3 Surrounding environment

5.3.1 Location of school in high-risk area 5.3.2 Distance to nearest river/stream/sea 5.3.3 Distance to local government office 5.3.4 Distance to police station


5.3.5 Distance to hospital/health center

Score of parameters of primary schools in Da Nang city

HC1 3.40 2.47 4.60 3.33 2.47 2.67 4.00 2.40 2.53 2.27 4.20 1.27 1.33 1.33 4.47 2.93 HC2 4.33 4.40 4.00 4.47 4.73 4.00 5.00 4.20 5.00 4.47 4.73 1.53 1.87 1.53 3.27 3.80 HC3 4.07 2.80 3.73 3.87 4.20 2.80 4.13 3.20 3.20 3.27 4.13 1.53 1.00 1.53 3.93 3.11 HC4 2.00 1.40 4.13 4.80 4.73 3.73 4.00 3.07 1.00 3.40 3.60 1.80 3.80 4.33 4.53 3.46 HC6 3.53 3.93 3.40 2.93 2.93 3.73 3.80 3.60 2.47 3.00 4.33 3.53 3.20 2.40 3.27 3.25 HC7 3.33 2.87 4.40 3.33 2.60 2.53 3.20 2.40 1.60 2.20 3.60 1.60 1.47 3.07 3.40 2.94 HC8 4.00 2.40 4.73 4.00 3.53 3.47 4.00 3.73 3.00 3.47 3.27 2.00 2.00 2.07 4.20 3.42 HC9 3.40 2.80 4.87 4.27 3.53 2.87 4.27 3.40 2.67 2.27 4.53 2.07 3.40 2.87 4.73 3.44 HC10 3.33 2.20 2.80 3.93 3.67 2.53 3.00 3.07 1.00 1.80 3.20 1.53 4.60 3.60 3.20 3.09 HC11 3.80 3.80 4.33 4.00 4.33 4.00 4.67 3.60 3.00 3.33 3.87 2.60 3.33 1.93 3.60 3.57 HC12 3.13 3.07 4.47 2.73 1.73 2.80 2.93 3.33 1.07 2.47 3.07 2.33 2.33 1.80 3.67 2.83 HC13 4.93 2.47 4.27 2.80 4.67 4.00 4.33 3.00 1.00 3.00 2.73 1.53 1.80 3.40 4.47 3.54 HC14 2.87 2.93 3.47 1.93 1.53 3.20 2.40 3.33 1.00 2.33 3.67 1.27 3.40 1.67 3.67 2.60 HC15 3.47 2.53 3.07 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.53 2.33 4.00 4.07 4.47 1.27 4.07 1.67 4.27 3.36 HC16 3.33 3.00 4.73 4.93 5.00 3.73 4.00 4.20 5.00 4.27 4.27 3.13 1.87 2.80 3.93 3.86 HC17 5.00 2.40 4.00 3.73 2.67 3.93 3.00 2.87 1.27 3.07 3.47 1.27 3.27 2.73 4.87 3.21 HC18 3.60 1.73 3.53 2.60 2.20 3.00 3.40 2.40 3.87 2.53 3.73 1.87 2.00 2.00 3.53 2.81 TK19 3.53 2.27 4.27 2.93 2.80 2.20 4.27 2.33 1.07 2.73 4.20 1.53 2.20 1.53 4.20 3.02 TK20 3.53 3.27 4.27 4.07 5.00 4.13 4.87 3.60 3.73 4.60 4.53 2.60 4.07 3.47 3.07 3.99 TK21 4.07 3.40 4.40 4.87 4.33 4.53 3.80 3.33 3.53 3.67 3.80 3.80 4.93 1.73 4.47 3.92 TK22 3.87 2.53 4.27 4.67 4.47 3.13 4.73 3.53 2.40 2.60 4.60 1.87 2.47 1.00 4.00 3.53 TK23 4.13 3.40 3.80 3.93 3.27 1.93 3.60 3.20 2.93 4.00 3.80 1.53 1.93 2.87 4.13 3.25 TK24 3.87 3.27 4.87 3.93 4.67 4.60 5.00 4.33 3.53 2.53 5.00 1.20 3.13 2.33 3.07 3.79

TK25 3.93 2.87 4.00 3.33 2.33 1.93 3.80 2.60 2.33 2.60 4.13 1.60 2.87 2.60 3.33 2.99 TK26 3.27 2.73 4.40 4.07 4.33 3.40 4.73 4.40 2.87 4.13 4.80 1.53 1.67 2.00 3.53 3.65 TK27 4.07 2.67 3.93 4.47 4.40 3.20 4.00 4.27 3.93 3.67 4.07 1.00 3.53 3.00 3.73 3.75 TK28 4.13 2.93 4.33 4.73 4.33 4.13 3.87 3.87 3.60 3.93 3.87 3.87 4.87 1.40 4.87 4.09 TK29 3.80 3.60 4.33 3.47 3.13 2.47 4.80 3.93 1.33 3.13 2.87 1.27 3.00 3.53 3.87 3.40 TK30 2.80 2.87 3.93 4.27 4.53 3.80 4.53 3.20 1.27 3.93 4.73 2.33 3.00 2.93 4.60 3.79 TK31 3.20 3.27 3.27 4.13 4.13 3.33 4.00 3.53 2.80 2.67 4.40 2.33 3.07 3.33 4.13 3.46 TK32 3.80 3.47 4.60 3.27 4.33 3.73 4.87 3.07 3.53 2.87 4.47 2.73 2.07 1.00 3.27 3.46 TK33 4.00 2.53 4.13 3.73 4.47 3.33 3.67 4.00 2.33 2.40 4.33 2.33 4.40 2.87 4.40 3.52 TK34 4.07 3.53 4.40 4.73 4.67 4.73 5.00 4.20 4.40 3.20 5.00 1.53 4.33 4.27 4.07 4.19 CL35 3.00 2.53 3.33 4.13 4.13 3.53 3.00 3.27 1.33 2.60 3.13 2.33 2.33 2.53 4.47 3.23 CL36 4.20 3.73 4.00 3.33 2.73 3.40 3.67 1.87 1.40 3.00 3.80 2.87 2.07 2.67 3.53 3.02 CL37 3.00 3.13 4.47 4.80 4.67 4.13 4.93 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.67 2.33 1.67 1.73 3.53 3.84 CL38 3.87 3.53 4.60 4.27 4.53 3.80 4.80 3.80 4.13 3.80 4.07 2.00 2.00 1.20 3.27 3.57 CL39 3.27 2.60 3.67 4.20 4.73 3.20 5.00 3.53 2.20 3.00 4.73 2.33 1.00 1.00 3.27 3.26 CL40 3.53 2.73 4.47 3.93 2.87 2.67 3.93 3.27 2.27 2.73 3.33 1.80 2.67 2.27 3.53 3.19 CL41 4.07 2.47 3.80 4.47 4.47 3.07 4.60 3.33 1.27 3.40 3.87 1.53 2.00 2.20 3.80 3.34 CL42 3.53 3.53 4.07 4.13 4.27 3.47 4.07 2.87 1.00 3.93 4.27 2.47 2.67 1.47 3.40 3.15 CL43 2.27 2.13 4.73 4.07 4.27 4.20 4.67 3.40 2.87 2.53 3.47 1.27 4.53 1.73 3.80 3.45 CL44 4.27 2.20 3.80 4.60 4.60 3.93 4.40 3.33 1.13 3.40 4.07 1.53 2.00 2.40 3.87 3.39 ST45 3.93 3.33 4.53 4.67 4.93 3.93 4.80 4.80 2.80 4.53 4.60 1.00 1.73 3.33 4.20 3.93 ST46 3.13 1.87 3.00 4.67 4.40 4.87 5.00 4.40 2.40 4.27 3.53 2.47 1.00 1.00 3.53 3.38 ST47 3.93 3.67 4.33 4.40 4.60 4.33 4.27 3.93 1.00 4.20 4.33 1.80 1.20 3.53 3.87 3.63 ST48 3.47 2.40 3.73 4.27 4.27 3.13 4.20 2.33 3.00 3.27 4.07 1.27 1.20 1.00 2.73 2.92 ST49 1.67 1.33 3.20 2.00 1.27 2.13 4.33 2.80 1.00 2.60 2.80 2.33 2.40 1.80 2.33 2.37 ST50 3.67 2.93 4.27 3.93 3.00 3.47 2.73 2.33 4.33 2.33 4.07 2.07 1.00 2.07 2.87 2.98

ST51 3.93 2.13 3.13 3.33 3.60 2.80 4.00 3.20 4.80 2.67 3.73 1.53 4.00 1.40 3.80 3.25 ST52 4.73 2.87 4.33 4.53 4.27 4.60 4.00 4.73 2.33 4.00 4.47 2.40 1.47 1.27 4.20 3.63 ST53 3.80 3.13 4.07 4.73 4.40 2.53 4.33 3.40 1.67 2.60 4.00 1.53 1.33 1.53 2.80 3.08 ST54 3.33 3.67 4.67 4.27 3.73 3.00 4.13 3.80 2.13 3.27 4.73 1.20 3.20 3.40 3.13 3.57 ST55 3.60 2.87 3.33 3.53 3.27 3.07 3.67 3.53 2.07 3.93 3.73 1.80 1.00 1.33 3.47 2.84 ST56 3.73 2.67 4.80 4.20 4.40 3.40 4.00 3.27 3.60 3.80 3.67 2.07 2.67 3.13 3.13 3.55 ST57 3.47 2.33 4.33 4.47 4.00 3.80 4.67 3.47 3.67 4.13 5.00 2.33 2.60 2.27 3.40 3.80 NH58 3.53 2.47 3.93 3.47 3.60 3.87 4.93 3.47 2.73 2.40 4.40 1.27 3.73 2.20 3.00 3.40 NH59 3.13 3.40 4.60 3.87 3.47 2.13 3.73 3.20 2.13 2.27 4.20 1.27 3.40 3.00 3.40 3.35 NH60 3.93 3.93 3.93 4.13 3.73 3.73 4.00 3.40 1.93 2.60 3.53 1.27 3.60 3.47 4.13 3.15 NH61 4.33 2.33 3.87 4.27 4.47 4.13 4.73 4.27 2.00 3.40 4.80 2.33 3.07 2.60 4.60 3.69 NH62 2.93 4.00 3.27 3.20 4.07 3.47 4.00 2.80 2.40 2.60 3.47 2.07 3.40 1.80 4.60 3.07 NH63 4.33 2.93 3.40 3.00 3.33 2.07 3.93 2.80 1.00 2.93 2.87 1.27 1.40 3.33 2.60 2.31 NH64 3.93 3.13 4.40 4.33 4.07 2.73 4.60 3.47 1.20 3.60 3.60 1.27 1.00 1.00 2.73 3.13 NH65 3.47 2.53 3.87 3.93 3.47 2.47 4.00 3.40 1.40 4.33 4.20 1.27 1.40 2.53 2.87 3.23 LC66 2.87 3.53 2.67 4.20 4.00 3.40 3.93 3.40 1.07 1.80 3.07 1.53 1.27 2.20 3.13 2.90 LC67 4.47 4.00 4.07 3.80 3.47 3.20 4.00 4.00 2.00 4.20 4.53 2.33 5.00 3.53 4.13 4.00 LC68 3.73 1.93 3.53 4.13 3.93 4.13 4.00 3.60 3.87 3.60 4.20 1.27 1.00 1.00 2.53 3.07 LC69 3.40 2.73 3.33 3.47 2.93 2.87 3.93 3.47 1.13 3.40 3.53 1.80 4.20 1.53 3.60 3.28 LC70 3.33 2.67 2.60 2.53 2.87 4.13 4.00 4.07 3.87 3.60 3.80 2.07 1.00 1.00 2.60 3.01 LC71 4.00 2.27 4.40 4.47 4.73 3.93 4.20 4.33 4.20 3.93 4.33 1.00 4.73 2.93 3.87 3.99 LC72 3.27 2.00 3.67 4.07 4.13 3.87 4.00 3.60 3.73 3.47 3.87 2.53 1.00 1.00 2.53 3.04 LC73 3.13 2.80 3.27 4.33 3.07 3.27 4.27 4.07 3.07 2.20 4.67 1.27 1.53 1.73 2.20 3.14 LC74 2.67 2.27 2.53 3.07 3.27 2.40 3.60 1.93 3.33 2.73 3.27 3.13 3.87 3.93 4.33 3.06 LC75 3.27 3.60 3.33 3.20 2.67 3.93 4.33 3.00 1.00 3.27 4.07 1.27 1.40 3.40 3.60 3.28 LC76 3.73 2.80 3.53 4.07 4.13 2.93 4.27 3.40 3.53 3.27 3.93 1.80 3.13 2.53 3.27 3.42

LC77 3.60 2.60 4.13 3.60 3.13 3.27 4.40 3.87 1.87 1.80 2.80 2.33 1.13 1.00 3.93 2.85 LC78 2.93 2.80 4.00 3.60 3.53 2.67 3.33 2.60 2.00 3.07 4.00 2.33 2.87 1.80 4.27 2.97 HV79 3.87 2.87 4.13 3.60 4.20 3.53 4.27 3.80 2.40 3.60 4.27 2.33 1.27 2.00 3.40 3.33 HV80 2.73 2.47 4.13 4.13 4.33 3.80 4.73 4.33 1.67 4.47 4.60 1.27 1.07 1.07 3.53 3.33 HV81 2.73 2.27 3.40 2.53 3.80 3.67 3.27 3.67 1.93 3.67 3.07 2.53 2.53 3.13 2.80 3.11 HV82 3.20 3.47 4.93 4.13 4.40 3.40 3.93 2.40 3.67 4.00 4.13 2.40 1.80 4.07 1.87 3.55 HV83 2.73 2.27 3.40 2.53 4.00 3.67 3.27 3.67 1.93 3.67 3.07 2.53 2.53 3.13 2.80 3.13 HV84 3.00 3.93 3.40 4.33 3.73 2.20 4.00 2.67 3.00 3.47 3.60 2.33 2.87 2.33 2.33 3.26 HV85 4.00 2.60 3.93 4.20 3.27 3.13 4.60 2.73 3.40 2.73 4.07 2.20 1.67 1.27 1.60 3.09 HV86 3.33 3.73 4.33 4.00 4.33 3.60 4.20 4.33 2.87 3.80 4.87 1.33 2.53 1.60 5.00 3.57 HV87 2.80 1.93 3.93 2.53 4.27 3.73 3.40 4.07 1.93 3.53 3.27 1.33 2.53 3.13 3.33 3.24 HV88 2.47 3.20 3.87 4.60 4.20 4.00 4.00 3.60 2.33 3.47 3.33 2.33 4.07 2.40 3.40 3.46 HV89 2.67 2.67 4.40 3.00 3.73 2.27 3.00 2.40 2.13 3.60 4.13 1.80 1.20 1.80 3.07 2.87 HV90 3.87 3.93 4.73 4.60 4.93 3.60 4.00 4.33 4.33 4.13 5.00 2.20 2.80 2.07 2.87 3.92 HV91 3.73 2.53 3.67 2.27 3.53 4.00 4.20 3.47 2.33 3.13 4.13 2.13 2.53 3.20 3.60 3.22 HV92 3.87 3.47 3.07 3.67 3.00 3.80 4.00 3.20 3.13 3.13 3.80 3.00 4.00 2.40 3.00 3.33 HV93 3.13 2.40 3.40 4.47 6.13 3.20 4.47 3.67 4.60 3.67 3.20 2.33 2.87 2.20 4.00 3.74 HV94 3.53 2.87 4.20 2.80 4.07 3.73 3.87 3.00 2.47 4.07 4.20 2.33 2.80 2.27 2.93 3.43 HV95 3.53 3.20 4.27 4.93 4.93 4.13 3.27 3.53 2.60 4.40 4.53 1.27 2.60 2.27 2.73 3.55 HV96 4.07 3.53 3.60 4.07 4.87 3.87 4.13 3.00 2.67 1.87 4.60 1.20 2.33 1.27 1.33 3.19 HV97 4.20 3.47 3.53 4.40 4.27 3.87 4.13 3.40 1.87 2.60 4.60 1.00 1.40 1.27 1.33 3.22

The list of solutions for 3 pilot primary schools

Table 1 The criteria to evaluate the solution

1 Feasibility 1 to 5 1 = Very low; 2 = Low; 3 = Average; 4 = High; 5 = Very high

2 Effectiveness 1 to 5 1 = Very low; 2 = Low; 3 = Average; 4 = High; 5 = Very high