School Seismic Safety in British Columbia:
A Grassroots Success
Dr. Tracy Monk1
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this
license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter
to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View,
California, 94041, USA.
―School Seismic Safety in British Columbia: A Grassroots Success‖ by Tracy
Monk is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialNoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Abstract:
This paper outlines the road to a US$1.3 billion, 15-year commitment by the
government of British Columbia, a province of Canada, to school seismic
safety. Key components to the approach were an alliance with the scientific
community in educating government and the population about the risks and
the solutions, and the incorporation of a public health approach to the problem.
Lobbying and media campaigns were also critical.
The paper examines the history of disproportionate damage to school
buildings in earthquakes around the world with particular focus on Canada and
the USA. Then, general obstacles to seismic safety are reviewed, including
fatalism of the population and perceived lack of short-term political gain for
governments, along with specific obstacles encountered in British Columbia.
The paper contains recommendations for scientists and experts on how to
engage in successful advocacy.

1

Co-founder Families for School Seismic Safety (FSSS www.fsssbc.org), Steering Committee
Coalition for Global School Safety (COGSS http://www.interragate.info/cogss), Family
Physician Vancouver, BC (tlmonk@telus.net)

1

 Table of Contents
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 2
OVERVIEW OF SCHOOL EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE........................................................................... 3
OUTSIDE OF CANADA AND THE USA ...................................................................................... 3
CANADA AND THE USA ......................................................................................................... 5
GENERAL OBSTACLES TO MITIGATION ....................................................................................... 7
CIRCUMVENTING THE OBSTACLES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA........................................................... 8
THE FOUNDING OF FAMILIES FOR SCHOOL SEISMIC SAFETY (FSSS) ....................................... 8
POLITICAL DISCOURAGEMENT..................................................................................................... 9
OBSTACLES MET AND OVERCOME ......................................................................................... 10
LESSONS IN SURMOUNTING THE OBSTACLES ......................................................................... 12
ALLIANCE WITH LOCAL SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS ............................................................. 12
A PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACH TO SEISMIC MITIGATION ....................................................... 13
LOBBYING.............................................................................................................................. 15
PUBLICITY AND MEDIA CAMPAIGN ........................................................................................ 16
SUCCESSFUL SAFETY ADVOCACY .............................................................................................. 17
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 19
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 20

Introduction
On 6 November 2004, the Premier of British Columbia, a province of Canada,
made a US$1.3 billion commitment to ensuring that the schools of British
Columbia will meet acceptable seismic life safety standards by 2019. This
commitment was made largely in response to a concerted one and a half year
public education, media, and advocacy campaign by the parents of British
Columbian school children, under the banner of Families for School Seismic
Safety (FSSS), working in collaboration with British Columbia’s engineers
and scientists.
This paper examines the components of the successes and long-term
challenges of the FSSS advocacy campaign and reviews the obstacles often
encountered in efforts to promote seismic safety both generally, and with
specific reference to schools. Four essential components in the success of this
campaign were:
• an alliance with local scientists and engineers in developing and
disseminating factual and compelling information outlining the
problem;
• a public health approach to the problem;
• a lobbying campaign consisting of meetings with politicians and
public officials at all levels of government; and
• a publicity and media campaign which created public support and
focussed the politicians’ attention, creating a ―white knight‖

2

 opportunity for government (further discussion is below on a ―white
knight‖ opportunity).
These lessons are discussed in order to focus on the development of a broader
―culture of prevention‖ (UNISDR, 2005).

Overview of school earthquake damage
To place school seismic safety in context, this section presents an overview of
school seismic safety both globally and in North America, demonstrating that
schools frequently sustain disproportionate levels of damage in earthquakes.
Sometimes they have been occupied, resulting on some occasions in greater
loss of life among children than adults, and sometimes they have collapsed
unoccupied, still with significant social and economic impacts.

Outside of Canada and the USA
When an earthquake strikes during school hours, the consequences are often
devastating for children and teachers caught in structural collapses. In
October 2005, approximately 19,000 children in Pakistan died in an
earthquake, most of them while attending school (Hussain et al., 2006). In
1988 in Spitak, Armenia, then part of the USSR, schools were
disproportionately damaged and the death toll among school children was over
1,000 (NGDC, 2004). In one school, 285 of 302 children died (Noji et al.,
1990). In Cariaco, Venezuela in 2001, two of the five reinforced concrete
buildings which collapsed were schools (López, 2004). School was in session
when the earthquake hit. In Spitak and Cariaco, more children died in the
disaster than adults.
In the aftermath of the collapse of a primary school in Molise, Italy in
2002 killing 26 children and one teacher (Augenti et al., 2004), the citizens
remarked that the school should have been the safest building in town. Instead
it was the only one to collapse. Ben Wisner, one of the drivers behind global
school safety campaigns, remarked on Radix, a disaster risk reduction and
sustainability network at http://www.radixonline.org:
The question is why, again and again, even in industrialized
nations with a wealth of engineering expertise – schools
collapse in earthquakes…Every, that is EVERY, school should
be inspected and where necessary reinforced. This is so basic
to risk mitigation in a seismically active area, it seems foolish
to have to write it down.

3

 Other school collapses of occupied buildings during earthquakes, some
representing a disproportionate death rate among pupils, include:
• Bingol, Turkey in 2003 killing 84 people (Gülkan et al., 2003).
• Ardakul, Iran in 1997 killing 110 people (CNN, 1997).
• Tangshin, China in 1976 when over 2,000 students died (FSSS,
2004).
• Ahmedabad, India in 2003 when at least 25 school children died
(FSSS, 2004).
Wisner et al. (2007) details even more examples.
Taiwan’s experience in the Chi Chi earthquake of 1999 highlighted
again the importance of ensuring the seismic safety of schools. Again, schools
took a disproportionate hit, but on this occasion they were empty because the
earthquake hit in the middle of the night. As Ellsworth (2004) stated:
The Chi-Chi earthquake exposed the vulnerability of
technologically advanced society to damage and loss. Some of
the lessons, such as the importance of building earthquakeresistant schools continue to be relearned despite the best advice
of scientists and engineers.
The economic impact of the failure of their children’s school buildings
was enormous for the Taiwanese. At a social level, families were disrupted
―from the bottom up‖ impairing the productivity of parents (Wei Lee, personal
communication). The broad economic impacts of the loss of school buildings
extended well beyond the educational sector into all aspects of the economy.
Similarly enormous economic and social impacts occurred with the
failure of unoccupied school buildings in an earthquake in 1963 in Skopje,
Macedonia, then part of Yugoslavia. Forty four schools were destroyed
representing ―57% of the total urban school building stock [in Skopje],
providing education for about 50,000 children‖ (Milutinovic and Massué,
2004). Milutinovic and Massué (2004) further explain that for the European
countries who are members of the EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement:
Earthquake data indicate that only a small proportion of
existing buildings suffered severe earthquake damage.
Unfortunately, these were mostly government buildings,
especially schools, and in some cases health care facilities.
Some other examples of the failure of unoccupied school buildings
around the world include:

4

 • Sapporo, Japan in 1952 when 400 schools collapsed (USGS, 2003).
• El Asnam, Algeria in 1989 when 70-85 schools collapsed or were
severely damaged (Bendimerad ,2004; NGDC 2004).
• Pereira, Colombia in 1999 when 74% of schools were damaged
(García and Cardona, 2000),
• Xinjiang, China in 2003 when dozens of schools collapsed
(Harmsen, 2003).
• Boumerdes, Algeria in 2003 when 130 schools suffered extensive to
complete damage (Bendimerad 2004)
Wisner et al. (2007) provides even more examples.
The extensive case studies of both student deaths and unoccupied
school collapses, around the world show that school children often face
disproportionate risk from seismic hazard. Neither the wealth of countries nor
their level of technological expertise seems to make a difference in leaving
children and schools at increased risk of death and injury during earthquakes.

Canada and the USA
Many engineers in Canada and the USA seem to be unaware of the
disproportionate levels of damage to school buildings in their countries’
earthquake experiences. In fact, as of mid-2007, few large earthquakes had
happened during school hours in Canada or the USA. Even going back 100
years and including the several thousand fatalities in the 1906 San Francisco
earthquake (much higher than the official casualty list), death tolls in
earthquakes in these countries have been relatively low compared to
earthquakes around the world. A review of the historical record of school
damage in earthquakes highlights how much luck has gone into these low
death tolls, and how children in schools have been particularly lucky, despite
being at significantly increased risk.
In Canada and the USA, schools have been disproportionately
damaged, often to levels of life-threatening severity (Table 1). The disturbing
history of poor performance of school buildings in American earthquakes can
be traced back to at least Long Beach, California in 1933.

5

 Table 1 – North American Schools in earthquakes – None during school hours
Year Location
1933 Long Beach,
CA
1935 Helena, MT
1944
1946
1949
&
1965

Magnitude School damage
6.3
70 schools collapsed, 120 damaged
(Richter)
6.25
Collapse of Helena high school. The greatest amount of damage to a single
structure was incurred by this building.
5.6
Collegiate and Vocational School - falling masonry broke through the roof of the
adjacent gymnasium obliterating a large area of the unoccupied gym.
7.3
Serious damage to interior of classroom

Cornwall,
ON
Courtney,
BC
Seattle &
7.1
Puget Sound,
WA
6.5

1952

Kern County, 7.3
CA

1964

Alaska

1993

Scotts Mills, 5.7
OR

9.2

Source
CSSC
(2002)
NGDC
(2004)
NRC
(2007)
NRC
(2007)
Washington schools sustained a disproportionately high level of damage - schools Noson
built prior to 1950 suffered extensive structural and non-structural damage. Thirty et al.
were damaged in 1949. Ten of these schools were condemned and permanently (1988)
closed. Three Seattle schools were torn down, and one was rebuilt. In 1949, a
large brick gable over the entry of Lafayette Elementary School in West Seattle
collapsed directly onto an area normally used for assembly of pupils at the time of
day the earthquake occurred.
About 20 schools were damaged or destroyed by this earthquake. Many of the NGDC
schools that collapsed were built prior to 1933. The Cummings Valley School (2004)
completely collapsed.
Government Hill Elementary School split in two and was virtually destroyed when NGDC
the ground beneath it slumped down. Fortunately, the earthquake occurred on (2004)
Good Friday, a school holiday. The entire second floor of West High School
classroom wing was a total loss.
At Molalla Union High School, a large quantity of bricks fell into the school yard. EERI
(1993)

6

 The earthquake of Richter magnitude 6.3 occurred in the evening.
Seventy schools collapsed and 120 were seriously damaged. There were five
children in a gymnasium that evening and all of them were killed. Had school
been in session, the death toll among children could have been over a
thousand. This event led to the creation of California’s Field Act which has
―enabled a higher design and construction requirement for California's public
schools since 1933‖ (Mujumdar and McGavin, 1999).
It is easy to forget the role that both luck of timing
mitigation in California have played in the relatively low
Canadian and American earthquake history to date. While
construction in Canada and the USA is often superior to
countries, it is not immune to earthquake collapse.

and extensive
death tolls in
it is true that
that in other

The overall record of poor performance of school buildings also
highlights the serious shortcomings of currently available tools to create
casualty models for Canadian and American schools. The available tools
create casualty projections based on casualty experience to date in Canadian
and American building typologies. These projections omit the repeatedly
catastrophic performance of school buildings in the estimates they create
because these buildings were unoccupied when they failed. Models which
omit the data will underestimate the total casualties for earthquakes which
happen during school hours, and they do not provide the full story that a large
proportion of casualties could be schoolchildren.
Japanese engineers acknowledge that prior to the 1995 Kobe
earthquake, a sense of complacency was common. In Canada and the USA,
insufficient knowledge of the historical ―near misses‖ can contribute to
complacency among school boards, governments, emergency managers,
parents and even some engineers.

General Obstacles to Mitigation
It has been traditionally difficult to convince populations and governments to
embrace the idea of preventive interventions, particularly for rare events.
General obstacles to disaster risk mitigation include the following:
• Fatalism of the population
• Perceived lack of short-term political gain for politicians
• Discomfort at the price tag
Fatalism often results from lack of understanding. Coburn and Spence
(2002) have explained that in many ways the state of hazard mitigation is at
the same point now, that public health was at in the mid-nineteenth century.

7

 At that time, the population was generally fatalistic, believing that epidemics
were just part of life. The consequence was that large numbers of people died
from water-borne illnesses with a prominent example being cholera. The
population had to understand first that the epidemics were preventable and
then to be convinced that it was worthwhile spending adequate public funds on
prevention.
The simple message for the public is that nature cannot be prevented
from unleashing its forces, but the ensuing disaster can often be prevented.
An often cited phrase, also used as the slogan of the Nepalese organisation
NSET (National Society for Earthquake Technology) proclaims ―Earthquakes
don’t kill people, bad buildings do.‖ This idea, that nature lets loose extreme
events which create disasters only because humans do nothing about it, is
frequently documented and says that long-term decisions, policies, and actions
are needed to prevent disasters (for example, see Lewis, 1999; Mileti et al.,
1999; and Wisner et al., 2004).
Because these events have long time horizons, politicians may have the
impression that they will only be incurring costs, without scoring political
points, by undertaking preventive measures whose benefits may not be
realized for decades or more. Although it is an investment which will reap
rewards later and which will look cheap after collapses occur in an earthquake,
if there cannot be an obvious payback before the next election, politicians can
be sceptical and unsupportive.

Circumventing the obstacles in British Columbia
The founding of Families for School Seismic Safety (FSSS)
FSSS (http://www.fsssbc.org) was founded in June 2003 in Vancouver to
tackle the problem of school seismic safety in British Columbia. Previously,
the issue of the poor seismic safety of British Columbia’s schools had surfaced
a few times. Various parent groups from individual schools at risk, and even a
brilliant student-led seismic advocacy effort called The Van Tech Lizards had
helped to bring the issue into the public consciousness. FSSS was able to
build on these efforts.
FSSS began by gathering parents and students concerned about the
issue and creating a website and e-mail list to inform the public and gather
support for advocacy efforts. We formed an alliance with the scientific,
engineering and seismologist communities and wrote a lobbying document
which laid out the risks and the solutions. With the facts laid out and the
scientific community at our side, we set about meeting with politicians and

8

 public officials at all levels to ask for a standardized assessment of the
problem and a fixed timeline of 10-15 years to seeing it addressed. We had
public letter writing campaigns organized through our e-mail list and school
parent advisory groups and we organized media events in order to bring
pressure to see the issue addressed.
In November 2004, British Columbia’s Premier Gordon Campbell
made a US$1.3 billion commitment to seeing all schools brought up to
acceptable life safety standards by 2019. It continues to require public
vigilance and pressure to ensure that this commitment is met. Parents
continue to be astonished that we have to keep asking the government for this
work to be done while other hazard mitigation efforts such as upgrading the
legislature and prisons and other public infrastructure carry on quietly without
the need for public pressure to ensure they are carried out.

Political discouragement
Most countries include schools on their critical infrastructure list. Canada is
one of the few countries which does not. While national historical monuments
make Canada’s critical infrastructure list, schools do not. Other countries
have understood the critical infrastructure role of school buildings for a
multiplicity of reasons, including their post disaster function, the importance
of maintaining educational capacity, and most importantly the value of the
staff and students in the buildings. The omission of schools on Canada’s
critical infrastructure list suggests that the ―contents‖ of school buildings are
somehow not important and that the role of schools is not essential to the
functioning of Canada’s communities.
With the locus of responsibility placed within an already cash-strapped
education sector, the funding for this infrastructure work was perceived. to
compete with the basic educational needs for children. FSSS repeatedly made
the point that the basic human rights of children to education and physical
safety should not compete for the same funds.
With regards to earthquake risk, British Columbia has a generally high
awareness. The City of Vancouver has seismically upgraded water supply
systems and bridges while the provincial electric utility, B.C. Hydro, is
systematically upgrading its buildings and infrastructure. The provincial
prisons were seismically upgraded and even a provincially run liquor outlet
was upgraded. Schools were not seen as a high priority.
In contrast, GeoHazards International (an NGO retrofitting schools in
developing nations led by seismologist Brian Tucker) conducted a survey in
Nepal prior to undertaking efforts to retrofit schools in the Kathmandu Valley

9

 in order to ensure that this was actually what the population wanted. When
asked if they would spend their own funds to prevent earthquake collapse of
their government buildings or temples, the answer tended to be ―no‖. When
asked if they would spend their own funds to prevent collapse of the
community school, the answer was an overwhelming ―yes‖.
At the outset of FSSS’ efforts to improve school earthquake safety in
British Columbia, political insiders suggested that no one would see fixing up
a ―bunch of tired old school buildings‖ as being ―politically sexy‖. In a global
political policy environment that is perhaps over-driven by political sex
appeal, sound bites, and instant gratification, it is key to engage the
community in a manner that educates the population to understand the
problem and then to demand solutions. A popular demand creates the shortterm political gain that politicians desire in countries such as Canada.
Governments sometimes score big political points in responding to
disasters once they occur (see ―disaster diplomacy‖ work at
http://www.disasterdiplomacy.org) especially when it is used as an
opportunity to ride in like a ―white knight‖. Huge amounts of money are often
spent deploying rescue teams and providing emergency aid when much less
cash could have been spent far more productively and effectively in
preventing the disaster and saving the lives in the first place.
Creating a ―white knight‖ opportunity for government in disaster
prevention requires the public to understand the issue and to demand that the
government spend the necessary funds—such as by recognising it as an
―investment‖, not an ―expenditure‖. This feeling was captured by a popular
radio host and political columnist in British Columbia who, after British
Columbia’s government had committed funds to school seismic safety,
proclaimed that he ―couldn’t think of a better way for the government to spend
our money‖.

Obstacles met and overcome
The main obstacles to seismic mitigation of schools in British Columbia were:
• Failure to designate school buildings as a priority for retrofit.
• Locus of responsibility within the already cash-strapped education
sector.
In much of the world, including Canada, deep layers of bureaucracy
and division of responsibilities between multiple levels of government have
distanced us from our ability to see and act on basic priorities. This is how
school seismic safety so often falls between the cracks (Wisner et al., 2007).

10

 There have been some notable exceptions such as California, Utah, and New
Zealand where many schools have been extensively retrofitted and replaced.
Just across the Canada-USA border from Vancouver, Seattle will have
completed upgrading or replacing its at-risk schools by 2010.
Public education in British Columbia, as in many so-called ―affluent
democracies‖, has faced increasing cutbacks. Although funding for the
buildings is a separate capital budget, the education budget is seen as a single
pie. In British Columbia, it was difficult for anyone within education to even
consider asking for funding to make school buildings safe if it seemed that it
would in any way compete with day to day classroom needs of children, such
as teachers salaries, textbooks, and lab or music equipment. Essentially,
parents and educators had been left feeling that they had to choose either
between educating their children or keeping them safe while they were being
educated. Two basic human rights of children were left to duel it out within
the same budget.
Other types of Canada’s infrastructure have not had to face inherent
competition of two such basic human rights, which is why other buildings,
including some liquor stores have been upgraded in British Columbia, as noted
above. As well, the management of school. buildings was separated out from
the management of most other government facilities and placed within the
Ministry of Education. As a similar example, in the wake of Taiwan’s 1999
earthquake, which disproportionately damaged schools, it was noted that these
buildings had been managed differently than other government infrastructure
which meant, for example, less oversight. Taiwan has taken steps to remedy
this due to the earthquake disaster.
In Canada, education is under provincial jurisdictional, however there
are precedents for joint federal-provincial disaster reduction initiatives as part
of the national disaster mitigation strategy. A prominent example is
Manitoba’s Red River floodway which was one factor in averting the flooding
of Winnipeg during the 1997 flood disaster.
A central tenet of FSSS was the notion that school building safety was
not an educational issue, but rather a safety and infrastructure issue.
Therefore, the two must not compete for the same funds. With the precedents
in federal-provincial disaster reduction initiatives, FSSS pursued federal
funding, in addition to provincial funding, for school seismic safety.
In October 2004, in response to the joint submission to government by
FSSS and the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists in
British Columbia (APEG BC), British Columbia’s government completed an
assessment of the 800 schools within British Columbia’s zone of high seismic
risk. 311 were found to be at high risk of sustaining severe damage to

11

 structural elements in the event of a moderate to strong earthquake. The initial
estimate, to address all structural and non-structural safety issues in British
Columbia’s 800 schools within the zone of risk, was US$1.3 billion. Two
days before the assessment results were made public, the Premier committed
that money from provincial funds to ensure that all of British Columbia’s
schools were brought up to acceptable seismic life safety standards within 15
years.
The price tag in British Columbia comes in around 2% of the
province’s spending on education.
This is in line with the theoretical
estimate of cost for European countries, given by Spence (2004) of 2% of
GDP spending on education to address school building seismic safety.
British Columbia’s school building annual capital budget has ranged
historically between US$125 and US$585 million per year. Current spending
levels have been around US$180-225 million per year. The seismic
commitment adds another US$90 million per year for 15 years. The combined
total is well within the traditional range of spending on school infrastructure,
meaning that the cost of safety does not exceed previous expenditures on the
capital budget for schools and is within normal parameters of basic
infrastructure maintenance.

Lessons in surmounting the obstacles
The following elements played a part in the success of the FSSS advocacy
campaign:
1. an alliance between community members and local scientists and
engineers in developing and disseminating factual and compelling
information outlining the problem;
2. a public health approach to the problem;
3. a lobbying campaign consisting of meetings with politicians and public
officials at all levels of government; and
4. A publicity and media campaigns which created public support and
focussed the politicians’ attention, creating a ―white knight‖
opportunity for politicians.

Alliance with local scientists and engineers
The support and assistance of the scientific community in ensuring that all
information presented to the public was scientific, factual and calmly
delivered, was central in creating political and public credibility for FSSS.
Carlos Ventura, Director of the University of British Columbia’s earthquake

12

 engineering research facility in Vancouver, was a local leader in helping to
educate the public. Andy Mill, Head of the Seismic Task Force of APEG BC
also took a lead role as an expert who explained engineering concepts in
simple terms for the media. Local seismologists such as Garry Rogers, John
Clague, and Michael Bostock did an excellent job of informing the public of
the nature of the seismic risk in British Columbia. While academic
publications exist (for example, Clague, 2002 and Rogers, 1996), these experts
helped to ensure that the content of these materials was made accessible to
most members of the public.
The seismology message of earthquake risk has been better understood
by the population than the engineering message of the needed solutions.
Preparedness, such as having water ready, large appliances tied down, and an
emergency plan for each family, tended to be well understood, but the
message which had not been grasped by the public was the fact that
earthquakes don’t kill people, bad buildings do. A particular surprise to
parents was that schools in British Columbia were built using some of the
most vulnerable materials and designs. In many neighbourhoods, the school
would be the most dangerous building to be in during an earthquake.
Architectural history has seen many British Columbian schools
constructed first in the early 1900’s as ―little red brick schoolhouses‖ from
unreinforced masonry, and then with non-ductile concrete between the midfifties and mid-seventies. In addition, schools have other features which tend
to make them higher risk structures: large windows on main floors, large open
gyms, and a history of additions over the years often made without due
consideration for principles of seismic resistant design. For FSSS, local
scientific and engineering support in documenting, explaining, and
highlighting such issues was critical to ensuring the technical credibility
needed to convince many people.

A Public Health Approach to Seismic Mitigation
Creating safer buildings, especially with respect to disasters, is a public health
intervention in the same way that building safer highways and legislating seat
belts are public health interventions. Safer buildings can be achieved through
legislating and enforcing building codes along with retrofitting of older
buildings. The seismic mitigation of schools can be seen in some ways as a
childhood injury prevention program
In public health, interventions are sometimes assessed in terms of cost
per year of life saved, or ―disability adjusted‖ or ―quality adjusted‖ life year
saved. For school-aged populations in a British Columbia earthquake, the
average age at death or injury would be 12, meaning that, based on Canada’s

13

 life expectancy statistics, each child death would represent 63 years of life
lost. Each brain or spinal cord injury would represent 63 years of expensive
medical care which is a cost incurred by every Canadian.
Some medical interventions cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of
dollars in order to prolong the life of someone who is expected to die soon.
Society has deemed that level of expenditure to be acceptable and expected.
Such willingness to spend that money from society’s coffers reflects the
impressive importance which is placed on life and quality of life.
The other central point in a public health approach to structural
mitigation is that it focuses on the humans and human impacts. There has
been a tradition within engineering to, understandably, focus on the buildings
and often to make cost-benefit analyses purely in infrastructure terms. The
economic impacts of the human consequences of earthquakes have seldom
been quantified, with examples of exceptions being Noji (1992), Porter et al.
(2006), and Wisner et al. (2007). The cost-benefit analyses actually become
more compelling when human impacts are taken into account.
Petal (2004) assessed the relative contribution of structural and nonstructural failures to death and injury in the Kocaeli earthquake of 1999 in
Turkey. She found that 87% of severe injuries were caused by failures of
structural elements and 68% of light injuries were caused by non-structural
elements. Infill walls were the most common non-structural element to cause
death or injury, accounting for 14% of combined deaths and injuries. Ceiling
components and standing cabinets each accounted for 10% of non-structural
combined deaths and injuries. 100% of the severe injuries occurred in
buildings with heavy damage or which had collapsed.
A fully integrated assessment of the impacts on humans of partial or
complete structural and non-structural failures of buildings, would take into
account the costs of short- and long-term disability and medical costs for
injured survivors. Work absence has easily quantifiable costs for both insurers
and employers. Serious injury is often far more costly to society in pure
economic terms than death.
Reviewing historical data, including triage category at time of injury, is
a potential element of attempts to build more accurate casualty models. It
would also be important to differentiate between the subsets of serious injury
like chest wounds, from which the patient may either die rapidly or else
recover with a good chance of leading their life similarly to before the injury,
versus brain and spinal cord injuries, which will likely have huge and lasting
impacts and expenses on both the individual and society. In any such
calculation, younger people have more expected years of life and so their
deaths and injuries will be a greater cost.

14

 At some level, the calculations carried out in this manner seem to help
engineers and emergency planners realize that they are not being
―sentimental‖ by making the lives of children a priority, but are acting on
principals that are somehow ―objectively validated‖ by equations. Adopting a
public health approach to the problem that factors in human consequences, not
just infrastructure impacts, enables decision makers to return to basic social
principles which are frequently forgotten in today’s political climate:
• Children are at the top of the public safety agenda.
• The two basic human rights of children to education and to safety
must not compete for the same funds.
At the end of the day, we do not need equations or calculations of cost
effectiveness to tell us what our guts already know and what evolution has
wired us to feel: there is no greater treasure to a society than its children.

Lobbying
One of the first steps taken by FSSS in British Columbia was to compile a
lobbying document. We laid out the information in a compelling manner that
explained the problem in simple terms that would be clear to politicians and
the public. We made condemning comparisons to other locations which were
far ahead of British Columbia in carrying out this work such as California,
New Zealand and our neighbouring city across the border with the USA,
Seattle. We made charts to demonstrate how far behind Seattle we were. We
also pointed out that prisons had been upgraded while schools had not.
Our lobbying document laid out the case for potential costeffectiveness in building management terms, in public health terms, and in
legal terms. For the latter, the possible legal costs if liability were found in the
case of a brain-injured child would be US$4-9 million.
The final section of the lobby document was ―The Ask‖. We asked
government to carry out an assessment of all schools at risk within 1 year and
to ensure that all schools met acceptable life safety standards within 10-15
years. Both tasks were logistically and financially doable.
Initially, the information was presented only to politicians at the
provincial and federal levels behind closed doors. It was clear in its
presentation that there was potential for political embarrassment, but also
potential to look good and be praised publicly if they acted on the information.

15

 Publicity and Media campaign
When governments did not appear to be responding to quiet lobbying, FSSS
launched mass e-mail campaigns through our web site and e-mail list. We
held press conferences and media events. A range of parents appeared on the
news and on numerous radio shows discussing the issue. Calm, reasoned,
concerned parents were sometimes accompanied at news conferences by
scientists and engineers.
The assistance of the scientific community was essential in creating
accurate, objectively presented, and verifiable scientific information. Our
approach was always rational simple, and scientific. Our message was never
aimed at fear mongering or hyperbole. The message was simply about having
our priorities in the right place as a society and being able to say at the end of
the day, that we had done our best to protect children from a known risk.
Students participated in the media campaign painting banners and even
writing and staging a brilliant play about attending school in a building at risk
and the government’s skewed priorities. The play was attended by politicians
and media. High school students also painted banners depicting powerful
images around disaster risk. These were displayed at the world conference of
earthquake engineering and at the City Central Public Library.
The culmination of an 18 month media and information campaign was
a press conference of international experts at the World Conference of
Earthquake Engineering in Vancouver in August 2004. The press conference
heralded the release of the OECD’s (Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development) recommendations on school seismic safety (OECD, 2004).
Six international experts explained the often disproportionate risk faced by
school children around the world: Carlos Ventura (University of British
Columbia, Canada), Wilfred Iwan (California Institute of Technology, USA),
Brian Tucker (GeoHazards International), Robin Spence (University of
Cambridge, UK), Mauro Dolce (Università degli Studi di Basilicata, Italy) and
Andy Mill (APEG BC, Canada). The press conference resulted in extensive
and prominent print, web, radio, and television coverage.
The media—including FSSS’ frequent media events, press releases,
and letters to the editor—can serve as an even more direct pipeline to the ear
of government than lobbying. Media coverage must accompany lobbying to
reinforce the message and to maintain momentum. Providing material online
and using the internet to create an alliance of concerned parents and
professionals ensured a focal point for lobbying and media efforts and
provided a coherent message.

16

 Each media mention served both to create pressure on politicians and
to calmly inform the public of the nature of the risk and the solutions. There
has been no panic in British Columbia as a result. The recognition of schools
as an infrastructure priority has built a sense of community across the political
spectrum. Awareness of seismic risk and mitigation that began with an
awareness of the issue specific to schools and children, has translated into a
broader level of concern among the public.

Successful safety advocacy
Olshansky (2004) has made the following observations about successful
seismic safety advocacy which have been borne out by the experience in
British Columbia:
• ―If you are a scientist or engineer, don’t be afraid to jump into the
policy arena. Seismologists and engineers with broader social
interests have been able to successfully mix these talents and
interests over the years.‖
• ―Take the initiative to meet with key decision makers. If you don’t
talk to them, they won’t know of the earthquake problem. If you
don’t talk to them about seismic safety, who will?‖
• ―The press can be very helpful in publicizing your cause, but use
them wisely.‖
APEG BC was very supportive in gaining the attention of decision
makers. Professional organizations and scientists are essential in adding
credibility to the message delivered both to the public and to government.
Ultimately, it is an informed voting public who will influence government.
I would also add the following observations for successful seismic
safety advocacy:
• Simplify the message of prevention for the public. ―Earthquakes
don’t kill people – bad buildings do‖ is excellent.
• Educate the population to the risk and the solutions to create a
―culture of prevention‖.
The engineering credo highlights the protection of public safety.
Engineers sometimes fear that they appear self-interested if they speak
publicly about the need for seismic mitigation, yet no one thinks that doctors
and public health officials act out of self-interest when they state publicly that
children need vaccinating, that drinking water must be clean, and that
measures must be taken to prevent influenza pandemics. Engineers and

17

 scientists are simply another group of experts laying out risks and risk
reduction.
The message of risk is ineffective in bringing about change if it is
delivered in isolation. Instead, it must be tied to a message of hope, that there
is a solution. Simply informing the public that there is going to be an
earthquake and that buildings might collapse is not enough. The public needs
to understand that it can do more than just fasten bookcases and make an
emergency kit; everyone can and should do more than just be prepared for a
disaster to happen. The public can press government to prevent the disaster,
such as by making schools safe.
At the time of writing, it has been three years since the British
Columbian Premier’s US$1.3 billion 15-year commitment was made. Despite
this impressive action, there is much work left to be done in holding the
government accountable to its promise. The advocacy of engineers, scientists,
parents, and all other community members will be required to see the work
completed. Issuing an annual report card on the state of progress of this work
is one example of an advocacy tool that could play a significant and positive
role in ensuring that political good intentions become a long-term reality.
Internationally, in 2006, the United Nations launched a campaign to
make schools the global primary focus of efforts to reduce disaster impacts.
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan (2006) noted:
Children are especially vulnerable to the threats posed by natural
hazards. At the same time, they can be powerful agents of
change, provided they are well armed with knowledge about
how to prepare in advance, how to act on warnings and how to
reduce risk at home and in their communities. It is essential,
therefore, to make disaster-risk education a component of
national school curricula, and to ensure that children understand
how natural hazards interact with the environment.
Activating populations to mitigate risk can be greatly assisted by
focusing on children at risk. It is no coincidence that many successful seismic
advocacy efforts have had, as a starting point, risk to children and schools
(Olshansky, 2004). Once the public has grasped the issue of prevention, with
children as a focal point, they often become ready to embrace broader
mitigation measures.
We all have a choice between fatalism and activism. We all can
inform decision-makers about risks and solutions and take an active advocacy
role to ensure that the information is heeded. That creates what the United
Nations seeks for disasters: A culture of prevention (UNISDR, 2005).

18

 Conclusions
In summary, school children around the world often face disproportionate risk
from seismic hazard while at school. Complacency about seismic risk is
misplaced, especially in Canada and the USA where references to low death
tolls in earthquakes omit the repeated catastrophic performance of school
buildings. A review of the historical record provides a sobering lesson in how
lucky these two countries have been in that earthquake-induced school
collapses have not yet happened during school hours when staff and students
were in the building.
A panel was convened by the OECD and GeoHazards International in
February 2004 in Paris in order to review the problem of and to identify
solutions for school seismic safety. Based on the observation that schools
worldwide routinely collapse during earthquakes, they made the following
powerful statement (OECD, 2004):
The motivation for school seismic safety is much broader than
the universal human instinct to protect and love children. The
education of children is essential to maintaining free
societies…most nations make education compulsory. A state
requirement for compulsory education, while allowing the
continued use of seismically unsafe buildings, is an
unjustifiable practice. School seismic safety initiatives are
based on the premise that the very future of society is
dependent upon the safety of the children of the world.
In engineering, as in public health, there is much work left to be done
in educating the population about risks and risk reduction. Hopefully, the case
study of British Columbia and the work of Families for School Seismic Safety
can be an example of the broader benefits which flow from taking a
multidisciplinary approach to the issue.

19

 References
Annan, K. (2006). Secretary-General stresses need to respond to children’s
needs in message to observe international day for disaster reduction.
Secretary-Genera l SG/SM/10664, IHA/1238, OBV/578. New York:
United Nations Department of Public Information, News and Media
Division.
Augenti, N., Cosenza, E., Dolce, M., Manfredi, G., Masi, A., & Samela, L.
(2004). Performance of school buildings during the 2002 Molise, Italy,
earthquake, Earthquake Spectra, 20(1), 257-270.
Bendimerad, F. (2004). Earthquake Vulnerability of School Buildings in
Algeria. Keeping Schools Safe In Earthquakes (School Safety and
Security) (pp. 35-44). Paris: OECD.
Clague, J. J. (2002). The Earthquake Threat in Southwestern British
Columbia: A Geologic Perspective. Natural Hazards, 26(1), 7-33.
Coburn, A., & Spence, R. (2002). Earthquake Protection (2 ed.). New York,
NY: Wiley.
Ellsworth, W. (2004). Will the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taiwan, Be
Remembered as the Most-Important Earthquake of the 20th Century?.
Taiwan: Proceedings of the International Conference in Commemoration
of the 5th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake.
Findings and Recommendations on the Use of Non-Field Act Compliant
Buildings for Public Schools. (2002). Sacramento, CA: CSSC
(California Seismic Safety Commission).
School Collapses - A Tragic Timeline’, information from FSSS. (2004).
Families for School Seismic Safety (FSSS)
Retrieved from
http://www.fsssbc.org/collapses.html
García, L. & Cardona, O. (2000). The January 25th, 1999, Earthquake in the
Coffee Growing Region of Colombia – Introduction. Auckland, New
Zealand: Twelve World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
(12WCEE).
Gülkan, P., Akkar, S., and Yazgan, U. (2003). A Preliminary Report on the
Bingöl Earthquake of May 1, 2003. Oakland, CA: EERI (Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute).

20

 Harmsen, P. (February, 22, 2003). Rescuers sift rubble as China quake death
toll passes 260. Agence France-Presse.
Hussain, S., Nisar, A., Khazai, B., & Dellow, G. (2006). The Kashmir
Earthquake of October 8, 2005: Impacts in Pakistan. EERI Special
Earthquake Report – February 2006. Oakland, CA: EERI (Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute).
Iran launches rescue efforts after quake kills 2,400. (1997, May 11). CNN.
Retrieved from www.cnn.com/WORLD/9705/11/iran.quake.
Lewis, J. (1999). Development in Disaster-prone Places: Studies of
Vulnerability. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications.
López, O., Hernández, J. J., Del Re, G., Puig J., & Santamaría, M. (2004).
Seismic Risk in Schools: The Venezuelan Project. Keeping Schools Safe
In Earthquakes (School Safety and Security) (pp. 89-100). Paris: OECD.
Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in
the United States. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press,
Milutinovic, Z. & Massué J. P. (2004). Towards Effective Mitigation and
Emergency Response in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Keeping Schools Safe In Earthquakes (School Safety and Security) (pp.
102-103). Paris: OECD.
Mujumdar, V. & McGavin, G. (1999). Field Act Public Schools...A Need for
Safety Reviews. Earthquake Spectra, 15(3), 585-595.
Earthquake Damage to Schools. (2004). National Geophysical Data Center.
Boulder, CO: NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration).
Retrieved
from
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg
/hazard/slideset/5/5_thumbs.shtml.
Noji, E (1992). Disaster Epidemiology: Challenges for Public Health Action.
Journal of Public Health Policy, 13(3), 332-340.
Noji, E., Kelen, G., Armenian, H., Oganessian, A., Jones, N., & Sivertson, K.
(1990). The 1988 earthquake in Soviet Armenia: A case study. Annals
of Emergency Medicine, 19, 891-897.
Noson, L., Qamar A., & Thorsen G. (1988). Washington State Earthquake
Hazards. Information Circular 85. Olympia, WA: Washington Division
of Geology and Earth Resources.

21

 Earthquakes Canada. (2007). Natural Resources Canada (NRC). Ottawa.
Retrieved from: http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca.
Recommendation of the Experts’ Group from Earthquake safety in schools
(2004). Ad hoc experts meeting, 9-11 February 2004. OECD
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). Paris:
Programme on Educational Building (PEB) and Geohazards
International (GHI).
Olshansky, R. (2004). Examples of Successful Seismic Safety Advocacy.
Background Papers, Promoting Seismic Safety: Guidance for Advocates,
Washington D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Petal, M. (2004). Urban Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness: The 1999
Kocaeli Earthquake. Doctoral dissertation. Los Angeles, CA:
Department of Urban Planning, University of California Los Angeles.
Porter, K., Shoaf, K., & Seligson, H. 2006. Value of Injuries in the Northridge
Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra, 22(2), 555-563.
Rogers, G. (1996) Earthquakes in the Vancouver area. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts
33(1), 4A.
Spence, R. (2004). Strengthening School Buildings to Resist Earthquakes:
Progress in European Countries. Keeping Schools Safe In Earthquakes
(School Safety and Security) (pp. 217-226). Paris: OECD.
The March 25, 1993, Scotts Mills Earthquake: Effects on Structures. (1993).
EERI Special Earthquake Report. Oakland, CA: EERI (Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute).
Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of Nations
and Communities to Disasters. (2005). Geneva, Switzerland: United
Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR).
Magnitude 8.3 - Hokkaido, Japan Region 2003 September 25 19:50:06 UTC.
(2003). United States Geological Survey (USGS). Retrieved from:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/Quakes/uszdap.htm
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon T., & Davis, I.. (2004). At Risk: Natural
Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters, (2nd ed.). London, UK:
Routledge.

22

 Wisner, B., Kelman I., Monk, T., Bothara, J., Alexander, D., Dixit, et al.
(2007). Chapter for C. Rodrigue and E. Rovai. Earthquakes, London:
Routledge.

23