| 17 Aug 2026
Seismic risk assessment of schools in Nepal for effective disaster risk reduction practices
Abstract. The 2015 Mw 7.9 Gorkha earthquake severely affected 40 % of Nepal's districts, damaging ~7,200 school buildings and ~30,000 classrooms. As Nepal remains highly susceptible to large earthquakes, improving earthquake awareness and preparedness among students and teachers is essential. Since 2018, the Seismology at School in Nepal (SASIN) program has promoted earthquake education through school-based outreach activities. This study presents the first comprehensive school-based seismic risk assessment in Nepal, evaluating 24 schools in western Nepal to (1) assess the seismic risk of school buildings and classrooms, (2) identify structural and non-structural vulnerabilities, and (3) propose practical, low-cost measures for earthquake risk reduction. The assessment integrates information from school authorities, qualitative assessments, systematic visual inspections, and a newly developed Earthquake Evacuation Drill Guide tailored to local contexts. A total of 730 classrooms were classified into four seismic risk categories: low (35 %), medium (35 %), high (17 %), and very high (13 %). Buildings constructed after the 2015 Gorkha earthquake generally showed lower vulnerability, whereas older buildings or those not complying with the National Building Code accounted for most medium, high, and very-high risk categories. The proposed framework supports priority setting, low-cost risk reduction strategies, and safer, more resilient school environments throughout Nepal. These kinds of classroom earthquake risk assessments are highly recommended in all schools in Nepal and across the Himalayan region.
This manuscript provides a clear analysis of the seismic risk at 24 schools in Nepal, and shows the value of working with administrators and teachers at each school to determine an appropriate response for their school. A detailed and internally consistent assessment of the seismic risk at the schools was carried out by a team of 5 experts which showed the current level of risk for each school. The risk is closely tied to building construction, but the team also considered a number of factors within the control of the school leaders.
Earthquake evacuation drills were held at 7 schools before and after students received training specific to their classroom situation. This included clarifying for students that Drop, Cover, Hold is not always the appropriate response in buildings with low earthquake resistance. The results from before and after training clearly show that value of the training, and the before/after assessment could be used in a wide range of schools to insure that students are prepared to respond to an earthquake.
Overall, the manuscript provides a clear template that others could follow to reduce the earthquake risk in schools and will be a valuable addition to the seismic risk assessment literature.
I have just a few suggested changes/additions:
Minor edits:
Figure 1: add a distance scale
Line 100: The sentence as written is somewhat confusing. I think it would be clearer to say something like …a student lost her life after she ran from the playground back into a building during the earthquake. She had learned the concept of hiding under the table during an earthquake and didn’t know that it was safer to be out in the open.
Line 176: add “were made” after “recommendations.
Figure 5: figures d and e need to be rotated
Figure 6: it would be clearer to spell out “no” as “number”