Assessment of vulnerability and resilience of school education to climate-induced hazards: a review

ABSTRACT The impacts of natural hazards on education systems are an understudied subject. This paper conducts a systematic review of the literature on multiple hazards and school education to explore hazard-induced disruptions in school education and the determinants of its vulnerability and resilience. The PRISMA framework is adopted to examine how indicators of vulnerability are clustered into various components for school vulnerability assessment. As the involvement of school children is vitally important in disaster risk reduction (DRR) and management at the local, regional, and global levels for resilience development in school education, the study also reviews school children’s participation in initiatives from various international organizations. The review results show that participation by children in DRR is generally weak due to the authoritarian tendency of society and lack of trust in the ability of children. It is observed that damaged infrastructure causes school closures for prolonged periods, leading to discontinuity of education. The review also highlights the lack of policies in implementing the Comprehensive School Safety Framework and the role of social networks in building resilience at schools. Future research should provide clear guidelines on children’s participation in DRR and the linkage between disruptions of school education and critical structural damage due to disasters.


Introduction
Education has always played a crucial role in the construction of the future of society in both the traditional and contemporary worlds.Access to quality education is a fundamental human right and a key determinant of the quality of life (Roh 2018), as it helps individuals acquire adequate skills to survive in the increasingly competitive world (Bhat 2014).Owing to the strong linkage between education and poverty reduction, access to education has been placed as the 4th Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) among the 17 (D'Ayala et al. 2020).The 4th goal refers to 'Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all (United Nations 2018).' Natural hazards negatively impact the education system by disrupting normal operation, which may pose a challenge in achieving SDG 4. The exposure of planet Earth to various hazards has drastically increased over the past few decades, especially due to rapid climate change.With the increased exposure, the frequency and impact of hazards have also drastically increased (Wang 2016).When a natural hazard exceeds the coping capacity of the community, it takes the shape of a disaster, which brings catastrophic impacts on various sectors of the community and threatens socioeconomic development, particularly in developing countries (Tong, Shaw, and Takeuchi 2012).Like all other sectors, the education sector experiences the effects of hazards in the forms of life losses and school infrastructure damage (Shah et al. 2018b).The education sector comprises of a number of institutions and stakeholders (Figure 1).Damaged school buildings, infrastructure, facilities, and resources are the key attributes that not only cause hindrance to children's access to education but also keep students out of school for several days or even months (Shah et al. 2020a).This is identified by numerous researchers as a key impediment to the SDG 4.
Research shows that the degree of losses to hazards not only depends on the strength of the particular hazard but is also influenced by the response, adaptation capacity, and adjustment mechanism of the community (Wei, Su, and Li 2020).Globally, natural hazards exert major effects on children, youth, and the education system.Moreover, the natural hazard trends and present scenario of climate change foreshadows that annually an estimated 175 million children across the globe may be affected by natural hazardrelated extreme events (Save the Children 2006).School-based disaster education is vital for generating awareness not only among school children but also among their communities to prepare for and respond to disasters (Boon and Pagliano 2015).Formal school education plays a key role in enhancing knowledge of disaster preparedness in pupils, teachers, and parents (Shah et al. 2022b).Therefore, the engagement of students in disaster risk management programs is expected to highly improve the resilience of schools (Shah et al. 2020a).As school children are more vulnerable to and adversely affected by natural hazards, as compared to adults (Hoque et al. 2021;UNESCO 2013), it is necessary to empower them through DRR education and encourage them to participate in preparedness actions.
Natural hazards and catastrophic events impose a negative impact on the population at large, particularly in developing countries (Figure 2), owing to their limited coping capacity with hazards.As school children often become victims of natural hazards while spending time at school (Shah et al. 2020c), the safety of children at school is a global priority, which has also been stressed in the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015) (Basabe 2013).Schools have been exposed to various catastrophic events over the recent decades (Ronoh, Gaillard, and Marlowe 2015), including devastating hurricanes such as Katrina in the US, the Earthquake and Nuclear crisis in Japan, the 2010 massive flood in Pakistan forcing schools to shut down (Shah et al. 2020c).The prolonged school closures and damage to the school infrastructure, resources, and facilities may become a major shortfall in attaining SDG 4, which may pose a cascading hindrance to other goals, especially SDG 1 on poverty reduction.
The hazard impacts on the school education system are exacerbated by underlying risk factors.Understanding the determinants of vulnerability of the community-at-risk is essential for enhancing disaster preparedness and recovery.Literature stresses the role of local institutions in the preparedness-building process, which highlights the lack of awareness, training, infrastructure, funding (Shah et al. 2017), and coordination between local stakeholders (Shah et al. 2019).Policy implementation to upgrade school infrastructure and professional development of staff members on emergency management enhance the school-based disaster response and recovery and reduces vulnerability (Shah et al. 2020c).Displacement of the affected communities leads to delayed enrollment of the children.Multiple relocations and financial instabilities of families are some of the determinants of educational vulnerability (Shah et al. 2022b).
This paper conducts a critical review of literature to address the following objectives: (i) assess how multiple hazards have impacted school education and disrupted its operations; (ii) explore determinants of vulnerability and resilience of school education to multiple hazards; (iii) evaluate children's participation in school level DRR planning; and (iv) assess the resilience building initiatives for school education in the local, regional, and global context.

Review methods
A systematic review approach was adopted by following the four basic steps: (1) developing a search strategy; (2) determining selection criteria; (3) quality assessment of literature, and (4) data extraction.

Search strategy
A search strategy was developed to identify relevant literature, which was tailored to three databases, namely the Scopus, the Science Direct, and the Google Scholar, while the search terms and Boolean operators adopted were as follows: Scopus:

Selection criteria
The selection criteria followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework (Figure 3) (Moher et al. 2009).The search focused on the literature on school education vulnerability and resilience in the face of natural hazards in the field of social sciences and environmental sciences.The search spanned from the database inception until recent, which covered the period from 2010 to 2021.It included review articles, original research articles, book chapters, and international organization reports published in the English language.All literature was from open-access publications.This search focused on the global perspective to obtain an overview of impacts of hazards, vulnerability assessment, and resilience-building strategies adopted globally to build safe schools.At this stage, a total of 978 research articles appeared in the search.

Quality assessment
To maintain the quality of the review, all duplicates were thoroughly checked.Eight duplicates were removed at this stage.The abstract of the articles was checked carefully to ensure their quality and relevance.One hundred and seven papers remained after the abstract review.A careful evaluation of each research paper was carried out, and 51 most relevant papers were selected for data extraction.Figure 2 shows the literature inclusion and exclusion at every stage of the process through the PRISMA statement (Moher et al. 2009).

Findings
Overview Natural hazards can claim children's life or leave them deprived of their right to quality education and adversely affect their future development process (Bhebhe, Runhare, and Monobe 2019;Mudavanhu 2015).Some of the frequently occurring natural hazards and their adverse effects on school education are highlighted in the three subsequent sections.The selected literature discussed the effects of flood, cyclone, earthquake, and tsunami as they pose a threat to both life and infrastructure, disrupting the education system both economically and through the loss of learning days.

Flood and school education
Flood is globally the most frequently occurring destructive and costly natural hazard (Field et al. 2012), with an account of losses up to USD 60 billion in 2016 alone (Tang et al. 2021).The intensity and frequency of floods are increasing and exacerbated by climate change in recent years (Bang and Burton 2021).The United Kingdom, especially England, has been experiencing major floods in the past decades with rising frequency and intensity (Ngenyam Bang and Church Burton 2021;Cologna, Bark, and Paavola 2017).Africa experiences an overwhelming recurrence of floods associated with the El Niño events in the Atlantic Ocean, causing destruction in all economic sectors (Bukvic et al. 2021;Hassan et al. 2012).Pakistan is highly susceptible to climateinduced hazards, especially flood (Shah et al. 2018b;Shah et al. 2020c).China suffers from floods in forms of both economic loss and human casualties, where between 2000 and 2017, around 127.46 million people were affected by floods, with death tolls amounting to 1248 and an economic loss of 0.54% of the GDP (Tang et al. 2021).
The flooding history in developing countries shows that educational institutions have been disproportionately hit by catastrophic events of floods (Shah et al. 2018b).In Zimbabwe, after the political independence in 1980s, reforms in the education system were introduced focusing on the theme 'Education for All.'Under this project, priority was placed on accessibility to education rather than the safety of schools.Schools were constructed in flood-prone areas without proper flood resilience and the emphasis was not on the quality of the school constructions.This resulted in disruption of education when floods stroke, failing the mission of Education for All (Hassan et al. 2012).
The extent to which flood has affected human life and livelihoods, social constructions, and facilities as well as communication infrastructure has been investigated and documented by several researchers.On the other hand, the extent to which flood has disrupted education has not received as much attention (Hassan et al. 2012).Moreover, in the face of disasters, health and material needs are prioritized over education during the recovery phase (Bisello et al. 2017).Table 1 shows a list of devastating floods in the past and their impacts on school education.

Cyclone/typhoons/tornados and school education
Typhoons and cyclones are among the deadliest natural hazards.Schools that are frequently hit by typhoons face education disruption through the loss of school days, negatively impacting the teaching and learning environments.Infrastructure is damaged by strong winds, incurring additional costs, distracting the academic focus of teachers, and disrupting learning environments.Risk of secondary health hazards, such as waterborne diseases and vector-transmitted diseases, follows in areas that experience a prolonged period of flood, which also adds to the loss of learning periods at school.Furthermore, schools are often used as evacuation and relief centers during and after disasters (David et al. 2018).Using primary education and literacy as indicators, Eskander and Barbier (2014) reported a significant drop in receiving quality primary education in the regions  and Church Burton (2021), and Bastidas and Petal (2012) DEVELOPMENT STUDIES RESEARCH severely affected by cyclones.Table 2 presents the major cyclones and their impacts on the education system.

Geological hazards and school education
Earthquake results in extensive human casualties and infrastructural damage (Wang 2020).When a quake occurs during school hours, children and school staff members face an acute crisis.The Pakistan Earthquake on 8th October 2005 caused deaths of 19,000 school children by collapse of the school buildings (Lin, Shen, and Hwang 2014).Data from Indonesia's National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) reveal that around 148.4 million people reside in earthquake-prone areas while 3.8 million in areas vulnerable to tsunami.Around 3900 schools throughout Indonesia were located in tsunami-prone areas with 437 schools located in high tsunami-risk zones in the Ache region of Sumatra Island (Parvin et al. 2022).
Owing to its location on the tectonic plates, the schools in the Ache region received 15-30 min of 'golden time' for evacuation after the tsunami warning, which shows how crucial it is to build a disaster awareness culture among students and staff members as well as the importance of the strategic role played by schools for preparedness (Dwiningrum, 2019).Table 3 summarizes the significant impacts of earthquakes and tsunami on the education systems in various economies.

Vulnerability assessment of schools
Risk, hazards, and vulnerability are defined and conceptualized in different ways between the fields of climate change adaptation (CCA) and DRR.The DRR community prioritizes risk, which is the combination of the  probability of hazards and the extent of the negative impact that follows.Meanwhile, the CCA community emphasizes the vulnerability aspect, which is measured in terms of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (AC) (Turner, Kasperson, and Matson 2003;Smit and J 2006).Vulnerability has been conceptualized in both the IPCC fourth assessment report (AR4) and fifth assessment report (AR5) as a multi-dimensional concept that includes both sensitivity and AC.Sensitivity is defined by IPCC AR4 as 'the degree to which a system is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by climate variability or change.'It is determined by the intensity of hazards and the characteristics of the exposed element, or its approximation using a set of indicators.AC is the capability of the systems, institutions, humans, and organisms to adopt strategies in coping with adverse circumstances of potential damage, taking advantage of opportunities, and responding to adverse consequences (Prasetyo et al. 2020;Mysiak et al. 2018).
Children's education is adversely affected in communities that reside in hazard-prone areas (Baez and Santos 2007;Bartlett 2008).Schools that are frequently hit by natural hazards lose teaching and learning days for a prolonged period during the hazards due to physical damage and losses and after the hazards due to serving as evacuation shelters or relief camps (David et al. 2018).
Table 4 shows these three elements of vulnerability with the listed indicators in the context of a flood (Opach et al. 2020).Likewise, the vulnerability assessment indicators for earthquakes and cyclones are summarized in Table 5 (Hossain et al. 2014) and Table 6 (Hoque et al. 2021), respectively.The review recognizes the multi-dimensional and complex nature of vulnerability and exhibits a shift from considering only exposure to hazards, to integrating sensitivity and AC in assessing vulnerability (Membele, Naidu, and Mutanga 2022).The three tables suggest that proximity to hazard areas is a major vulnerability indicator under the exposure element, whereas information on preventive measures, early warning, and knowledge of risk is cited as one of the key vulnerability indicators under AC.
Determinants of the frequency of different natural hazards have been studied.Research on school vulnerability in the Philippines shows that geographical location is the key determinant of the frequency of different natural hazards.Provinces of the Philippines that have a high density of population and are located in inland water bodies are prone to frequent flooding, whereas provinces on the eastern side of the country are more vulnerable to severe typhoons (University 2014).The key determinants of vulnerability can be explained through the pressure and release (PAR) model (Figure 4).The model highlights how the intersection of unsafe conditions, underlying root causes, and hazards increases the vulnerability of an element.The pressure can be released from the vulnerable element by reducing or eliminating the unsafe conditions and the root causes.

Reducing risk and building resilience
Resilience is defined as 'the ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organization, and the capacity to adapt to stress and change' (IPCC 2014).School facilities that are not well constructed or maintained to withstand shocks from regional hazards may be affected by high-   profile hazards, killing tens of thousands of students.This may sometimes have an indirect effect on the future economy by weakening the education system as a whole (Paci-Green et al., 2020a).Considering the hazard profile of the region, the current study has focused on floods and cyclones as the most impactful hydrometeorological hazards and earthquakes as the primary geophysical hazard impacting the school education system (Bastidas and Petal 2012;Parvin et al. 2022).To build resilience against natural hazards and ensure school safety, the education authorities, construction engineers, and school community members should work together to ensure that school sites and buildings are safe, and continuity plans for education during and after the disaster are in place.Properly mapped data are crucial for reaching the DRR goals.Maps help reveal the patterns of geographical space to understand the features that may leave the schools vulnerable to a particular type of hazard and also show access to evacuation avenues during emergencies (David et al. 2018).A case study in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in Pakistan highlighted an indicator-based approach to assessing the resilience of school sites, and building safety and continuity plans for education during and after the disaster (Shah et al. 2018b) (Table 7).Safe infrastructure and geographical location are the two key factors for DRR at schools (Luis 2014).Wang (2020) comprehensively discussed school resilience assessment through its five interdependent dimensions and associated indicators.The research highlighted the importance of plans for evacuation drills, effective warning systems, evacuation route plans, emergency responders' contact lists, resource inventory, emergency communication systems, and public information systems (Figure 5).
Initiatives have been taken by international organizations to strengthen school safety and enhance resilience in the education system.Several projects were launched by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) to enhance and ensure education quality for all children (Wright et al., 2009)     Pillar 2 School Disaster Management: The survey showed that globally less than half (44%) of the Pillar 2 policies had been adopted by schools.Three quarters (75%) of the schools had a school disaster management plan but capacity development received a limited focus.Only 54% of the schools had education continuity plans while 25% practiced children's active participation in the disaster management plan.Pillar 3 Risk Reduction and Resilience Education: Globally, 56% of the schools included at least one disaster education module in their school curriculum; 62% of the schools included climate change-related topics in their curriculum; 60% included DRR; and 40% included resilience-related topics in their courses.
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 2015-2030 was adopted at the third UN world conference on DRR in Sendai, Japan in March 2015, aiming to reach its targets within 15 years of the formulation of the framework and highlighted four priorities for actions to address and reduce disaster risk (Table 8).

DRR education and children's participation
Disaster education aims to reduce disaster risk by building 'a culture of safety and resilience'.The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 and the SFDRR 2015-2030 address issues related to disaster knowledge and highlight the critical role of knowledge in reducing disaster risk (Dwiningrum et al. 2020).Disaster education is a cross-disciplinary area of science that needs to be integrated into the curriculum throughout the levels of formal and informal education.The key focus of disaster education should be on empowering stakeholders in solving challenges using their knowledge and  Disaster risk governance at the national, regional, and global levels is important for prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery, and rehabilitation.It fosters collaboration and partnership.

Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience
Public and private investment in disaster risk prevention and reduction through structural and nonstructural measures is essential to enhance the economic, social, health, and cultural resilience of persons, communities, countries, and their assets, as well as environments 4. Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to 'Build Back Better' in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction The growth of disaster risk means that there is a need to strengthen disaster preparedness for response, take action in anticipation of events, and ensure capacities are in place for effective response and recovery at all levels.The recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction phase is a critical opportunity to build back better, including through integrating DRR into development measures.
indigenous expertise rather than merely teaching concepts of disaster preparedness (Shah et al. 2020b).The importance of school-based education programs in building disaster resilience is also highlighted in the case study in Australia (Dufty 2009).The main focus of child-centered DRR (CC-DRR) is to build awareness of the disaster risk in their community and enhance children's skills to reduce the potential risk and impact of hazards (Benson and Bugge 2007).
Figure 7 shows how disaster risk reduction education (DRRE) can improve disaster preparedness and response.Various antecedent factors such as family background, genetic trait, and abilities influence a person's education, which in turn contributes both directly and indirectly to the preparedness actions of the person in the face of a disaster.Direct effects: Knowledge, problem-solving skills, and competencies acquired through formal schooling influence the preparatory actions of the individual.Experimental studies show that higher-order cognitive skills acquired through formal education improve risk assessment and decision-making skills.Moreover, education also enhances the person's capacity to plan for the future and efficiency in the allocation of resources (Hoffmann and Muttarak 2017).Indirect effects: Higher income is one of the major returns to education, which enables the individual to undertake costly preparatory measures such as investing in disaster insurance and flood protection devices.Highly educated personnel have better access to different sources of information, which in turn influences their decisionmaking and response action.Thus, it is evident that education potentially improves preparedness behavior through direct and indirect channels, which in turn influences the disaster experience of the individual (Hoffmann and Muttarak 2017).
When children obtain access to disaster information, they can assist in risk awareness creation, play the role of an interpreter, and relay messages to communities (Mudavanhu 2015).International agencies and researchers have made efforts to underscore the importance of inclusion of children in disaster preparedness and risk reduction actions in communities (Delicado et al. 2017).Participatory action research by Tanner et al. (2009) identified various roles children can play in climate change and DRR activities, as follows: . Analyzer of risk and risk reduction activities .Designers and implementers of projects .Communicators of risks and risk management options (especially communications to parents, other adults, or those outside the community) .Mobilizers of resources and people .Constructors of social networks and capital However, the nature and mode of such participation were not mentioned in their research.Delicado et al. (2017) assessed the role attributed to children in policy and DRRE in Portugal and showed that children's participation in DRR was weak despite the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990.The weak participation was attributed to the authoritarian perception of society.This aspect was also emphasized by Mudavanhu (2015) based on the case study in Muzarabani province of Zimbabwe, where the following issues were raised: . Adults did not seek children's views. .Children were not given space to express themselves.
. No steps were taken to ensure that children affected by disasters participated in DRR. .Despite children's access to disaster information and willingness to express their views, there was no process for children to communicate their views. .Children's views were not considered by decision makers. .Children were not informed of the ways in which their views might impact the decision nor provided with information regarding the reason for a particular decision made.
International agencies and researchers argue that children's participation in the prevention and mitigation stage of disasters, and the rescue, relief, and rehabilitation phases showed positive contributions to risk reduction (Tanner 2010;Towers et al. 2014).Nevertheless, it is unfortunate to observe a lack of empirical evidence of children's participation in DRR activities (Pfefferbaum, Pfefferbaum, and Van Horn 2018).Martin (2010) revealed in her study in Bangladesh that despite the recognition and advocacy by international agencies, there was limited evidence of success in the inclusion of children in the process of DRR.She also argued that to allow full and effective participation, it is essential to change the attitudes of children's caregivers and DRR actors.To date, their capacity has been underestimated and underutilized, as they are not well represented and are often excluded from the participation and consultation processes (Martin 2010).
Case Study: A case study conducted in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan showed that schools that provided emergency preparedness education to train their students and staff members managed to handle catastrophic risks better.Although most schools in the province did not provide disaster preparedness education in the classroom, some schools in the Nowshera and Charsadda districts of the province taught several techniques on how to manage and respond to a wide range of emergencies such as floods, flash floods, and earthquakes.This disaster preparedness knowledge was imparted through regular drills and educational videos.Students were trained on where to call in the face of different emergencies and were taught to contact their parents, neighbors, and friends when they encountered a flood situation.They were warned not to cross rivers alone during floods and to move to highland areas to avoid the rush of water.Classroom drills were conducted in these schools to train students on how to respond during emergencies like earthquakes, find covers away from windows or tables, shield themselves by dropping their 'heads and hands between knees', stay undercover or indoors for at least one minute until there was no further shaking, not to rush into buildings if they were outdoors, and stay away from threats such as tall buildings, power lines, etc. during earthquakes (Shah et al. 2020c).

Role of community resilience in reducing risk at school
DRM interventions are more effectively implemented with the collaborative participation of concerned local communities and residents (UNCRD 2003).Initiatives should involve local communities in the disaster mitigation plan and disaster response phase (Hoffmann and Muttarak 2017;Delicado et al. 2017).In the recent decade, an increasing number of countries have adopted the concept of communitybased disaster risk management (CBDRM), thereby involving local communities in disaster preparedness and response (Jahangiri, Izadkhah, and Tabibi 2011).The CBDRM played a vital role in disaster management and emergency response in the Katmandu Earthquake in 2015, the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, the Great Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004 in Indonesia, and the 1999 Earthquake in Turkey (Amini Hosseini and Izadkhah 2020).The recovery phase also requires strong collaboration between schools and local communities in reducing the losses (Shiwaku, Ueda, and Oikawa 2016).
In Taiwanese schools, the government reinforced collaboration between schools and local communities to establish a partnership in launching official websites and social media pages to develop relevant game software and interactive disaster prevention question banks, integrating school resources and external resources from governmental ministries, private organizations, and academia (Wang et al. 2019).Local governments' interventions and efforts in strengthening the collaboration between schools and local communities should be the focus of the future of DRR (Wang 2020).
The case study in Pakistan highlighted that establishing emergency management committees at the school level was effective in managing crisis periods.These committees worked toward recommending policies on risk assessment, formulating the standard operating procedures (SOPs), developing early warning at the school level, and identifying alternative learning sites for schools during emergencies.However, there was a lack of emergency committees at schools due to inadequate funding or knowledge of such processes (Shah et al. 2020c).A close collaboration between schools, communities, and local authorities is essential in the assessment, emergency planning, preparedness, mitigation, and recovery phases of an emergency (Shah et al. 2022a).

Discussions
It is evident that the school infrastructure and education system face serious challenges due to disruptions during and after natural hazards.While the systematic literature review shows the increase in adverse effects of natural hazards throughout the globe, especially on school education systems as social infrastructure, mitigation and capacity development for school system resilience lack attention.The school education system contributes to social awareness and capacity enhancement, hence contributing to growth, development, livelihood options, and opportunities (Howard 2023).It is evident from literature that the majority of schools in the South Asian region serve as public infrastructure accessible to the local government and communities.School infrastructure is often being used as evacuation centers and relief camps during and after disasters (David et al. 2018) and even as quarantine or isolation centers during the COVID-19 pandemic.The unplanned and unprecedented occupancy of school buildings and the premises during and after any disasters causes a loss of class learning days and increases the absence rates of students, sometimes leading to dropouts (Parvin et al. 2022).As the school education system is part of the influential social infrastructure, loss of academic documents during disasters also affects students in the future, while the shortage of facilities in the wake of disasters may trigger brain drain of teachers, impacting the quality of education in the long run.
Developing countries dominate the list of negative impacts of floods, cyclones, and earthquakes on schools (Tables 1, 2, 3).Disaster impacts are more prominent in the eastern hemisphere, presumably due to the difference in climatological effects that influence the occurrence of hazards as well as the AC of the countries.While the damage to school infrastructure was emphasized, impacts on other critical infrastructure that may pose a cascading effect on education were not discussed adequately in the selected literature.The feed-back model explains the three primary components of vulnerability as exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (Figure 8).Unplanned establishment of schools raises the exposure to natural hazards and often induces a higher degree of vulnerability (Shah et al. 2018a).While vulnerability to multiple hazards may depend on geographical locations and geomorphology, attempts to analyze vulnerability through comprehensive indicators in the context of exposure has not been widely observed.The involvement of children in the DRR process is also recognized as one of the key change agents for vulnerability reduction in the school education system (Martin 2010).The increased AC, on the other hand, may help reduce vulnerability despite high exposure, as enhanced AC reduces sensitivity and hence vulnerability.The systematic review identified the various indicators of vulnerability to natural hazards (Opach et al. 2020;Hossain et al. 2014;Hoque et al. 2021).Schools as critical infrastructure and their interdependency on various systems are extensively discussed in the various research conducted in the selected literature.
Although the CSS framework proposed three pillars for DRR, it was not incorporated internationally in a consistent manner (Paci-Green et al., 2020b).Adaptation and extensive implementation of such guidelines were not identified at the same rates globally.The literature review indicates a need to provide policy intervention and framework to improve the resilience pathways for the school education system.

Conclusion
The reviewed literature extensively discussed building resilience, strengthening infrastructure, and preparedness for disasters.However, it failed to adequately highlight the issues such as protecting academic record documents during disasters, policies on relief fund allocation for the education system, policies on the implementation of the CSS framework at schools, and the role of social networks in building resilience at schools.
Main research gaps identified through the systematic review of literature are as follows: . Clear reasons behind the difference in impacts of hazards at schools between developed and developing countries or the Eastern and Western Hemispheres. .Clear reasons behind the difference in adaptation policies of the CSS framework between developed and developing countries.

DEVELOPMENT STUDIES RESEARCH
. A concise indicator library that would define vulnerability both in terms of geomorphology of the place and multi-hazard specificity. .A clear guideline on children's participation in DRR activities and a framework for formulating, adopting, and implementing policies for their participation in DRR. .Extent of damage to critical infrastructure due to natural hazard-induced disasters and its cascading impact on school education.
This study suffers several limitations.The research papers considered for the present review are aligned with the objectives of those researchers.It was thus challenging to find the exact information required for the purpose of this study.Moreover, some relevant literature was excluded from the study based on the search string adopted and the exclusive inclusion of papers published in the English language.This might have resulted in underrepresentation of some geographical regions in the review.As the review attempts to focus on the impact of climate-induced hazards, other types of hazards such as biological and geological hazards were discussed less in the review.Further research using primary data will be complementary and helpful in further pursuing the research objectives.In addition, considering journals, research papers, and articles written in local languages might provide a holistic picture and risk perceptions at the local level.Future studies should address the aforementioned research gaps to investigate the resilience of the education sector.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Components of the education sector.Source: Authors.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3.The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) Framework (Moher et al. 2009) was applied to this review study.
. The Interagency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) took initiatives to set minimum standards for safe learning environments for children during crisis situations.The United Nations Office for DRR (UNDRR), through projects including the Worldwide Initiative for Safe School (WISS), attempted to ensure school safety during crises in 50 countries (Paci-Green et al., 2020b).A Comprehensive School Safety (CSS) Framework was introduced in 2012 to reduce disaster risk in the education sector.This framework was endorsed in 2015 by the Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector (GADRRRES), an alliance facilitated through the UNDRR.The CSS Framework conceptualized
school safety on three pillars -Pillar 1: Safe Learning Facilities, Pillar 2: School Disaster Management, and Pillar 3: Risk Reduction and Resilience Education.

Figure 6
presents a concept diagram of the three pillars.A CSS baseline survey conducted globally by Paci-Green et al. (2020b) and Dwiningrum, Prihastuti, and Suwarjo (2019) with 68 participating schools showed the following:Pillar 1 Safe Learning Facilities: Seventy-four percent of the countries had both safe design and safe construction included in their policy of school construction.Sixtysix percent of the schools included safe site selection and monitoring of school construction in their construction policy.Only one-third (34%) of the schools had policies limiting the usage of schools as evacuation shelters and relief camps.

Figure 7 .
Figure 7. Flowchart explaining how education influences disaster preparedness and its interplay with disaster experience.Source: Hoffmann and Muttarak (2017).

Table 1 .
Flood events and their impacts on the education system.
2012Thailand 2,600 schools and 700,000 students and teachers were affected by floods in Bangkok.Damage to educational facilities was worth est.USD 224 million.2010 Pakistan Flood partially or completely destroyed 10,348 educational structures, of which 9,368 were primary schools.2010, 2005, 2004 England Schools were flooded, closed, and disrupted, respectively.2007 Assam, India 150,000 people evacuated to schools during the flood.2004 Bangladesh 1,259 schools were lost to the flood and 24,236 schools were damaged.2000 Cambodia 500,000 to one million students were affected by the flood with 1000-2000 schools in eight provinces affected.Sources: Compiled from Shah et al. (2018a), Ngenyam Bang

Table 2 .
Major cyclones and their impacts on the education system.India Cyclone Fani destroyed 6,498 schools.2010Philippines 28 schools were completely damaged during Super Typhoon Megi and 63 schools were used as evacuation centers disrupting education continuity.2009Philippines Tropical storm Ketsana damaged 78 schools completely and around 122 schools were used as evacuation centers.2009Taiwan 682 schools were destroyed by typhoon Morakot.2009BangladeshAlmost all primary schools in the coastal areas incurred 90%−100% damage to buildings, furniture, and materials.

Table 3 .
Major Earthquakes and Tsunami and their impacts on the education system.

Table 5 .
Indicators for earthquake vulnerability assessment.

Table 6 .
Vulnerability indicators for cyclones.

Table 4 .
Indicators of flood vulnerability assessment.

Table 7 .
Indicators for safe schools.