vulnerability of schools to floods in nyando river catchment, kenya

Vulnerability of schools to floods in Nyando River catchment, Kenya

Samuel O. Ochola Lecturer, Department of Environmental Studies and Community Development, Kenyatta University, Kenya, Bernhard Eitel Rector, Heidelberg University, Germany, and Daniel O. Olago Senior Lecturer, Department of Geology, University of Nairobi, Kenya

This paper assesses the vulnerability of schools to floods in the Nyando River catchment (3,600 km2) in western Kenya and identifies measures needed to reduce this vulnerability. It surveys 130 schools in the lower reaches, where flooding is a recurrent phenomenon. Of the primary schools assessed, 40% were vulnerable, 48% were marginally vulnerable and 12% were not vul-nerable. Of the secondary schools, 8% were vulnerable, 73% were marginally vulnerable and 19% were not vulnerable. Vulnerability to floods is due to a lack of funds, poor building standards, local topography, soil types and inadequate drainage. The Constituencies Development Fund (CDF), established in 2003, provides financial support to cover school construction and recon-struction costs; CDF Committees are expected to adopt school building standards. In an effort to promote safe and resilient construction and retrofitting to withstand floods, this paper presents vulnerability reduction strategies and recommendations for incorporating minimum standards in the on-going Primary School Infrastructure Programme Design.

Keywords: flood vulnerability, Kano Plains, Nyando River, school buildings, vulnerability reduction

IntroductionApart from homesteads and markets, the most common types of buildings found on the flood plains of the Nyando River catchment in Kenya are educational facilities (see Figure 1). They are of two types—primary and secondary schools—highly regarded and owned by the local communities, which in most cases donated land for their construction. The schools are regarded as the hub of community life. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2004) reports that educational facilities, by their function, are evenly distributed across their catchment areas and that, ideally, they are used by the vast majority of the population at some time in their lives. Therefore, they are well placed as potential refuges in the case of a disaster. At the same time, however, if a disaster occurs, educational buildings are bound to be affected. Occupants of schools are young and vulnerable people who need special attention and protection (UNISDR, 2007b). In the study area, the schools are repository centres of important documents such as educational certificates and books. Pupils, students and teachers spend a great amount of their time in these schools; the buildings

doi:10.1111/j.03613666.2010.01167.x

Disasters, 2010, 34(3): 732−754. © 2010 The Author(s). Journal compilation © Overseas Development Institute, 2010 Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Vulnerability of schools to floods in Nyando River catchment, Kenya 733

are used more than seven hours per day, 260 days per year. Secondary schools handle chemicals and reagents. Care should be taken in constructing classrooms and other school buildings so that they may withstand floods and serve to keep occupants comfortable and safe. In Kenya, little has been written on the vulnerability of school buildings to flood (or other) hazards. Kenya lacked rules and standards for school constructions up to 2005, when it initiated a project to develop primary school building standards, funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) and to be completed in 2010. There is a need to incorporate special design standards for schools in the floodprone areas; the location of schools that are vulnerable to floods and other hazards must also be identified. In the years preceding the May 2000 floods, the World Bank financed construction of 487 schools in Mozambique according to local building practice. However, during subsequent floods, 500 primary schools and seven secondary schools were damaged or destroyed, severely setting back development goals (World Bank, 2006a). This shows how a lack of hazard measures or exclusive reliance on local practice can lead to large human and economic losses and set back development goals in the event of a natural disaster. Like other postcolonial states, the ‘fragile’ Kenyan state has been severely constrained in its efforts to build a modern and meritocratic educational system (Buchmann, 1999). Several studies and reviews have been conducted on Kenya’s education policy.1 While some focused on inequalities and enrolment among slum, nonslum and rural children in Kenya (Sifuna, 1991; Mugisha, 2006), others advocated a return to the strategies for vocational education in Africa, with particular regard to rural communities (Kallaway, 2001). Globally, even within evacuation and refugee centres, attempts have been made to have minimum standards on managing safe education in emergencies (UNHCR, 2007). Funding constraints are the primary limitation to the realization of universal access. Even without improvement in quality of educational infrastructure, the realization of universal access will remain an illusion unless the Kenyan economy is able to support its education system (Mukudi, 2004).

The study areaThe Nyando River catchment in western Kenya straddles the equator bound by longitudes 34° 50’ 0”E and 35° 40’ 30”E (see Figure 1). The catchment’s rivers drain westwards from the Tinderet hills, the Nyando escarpment and Nandi Hills and the Mau escarpment. The altitude varies from 1,000m above sea level at Lake Victoria to 3,000m above sea level in the highlands. It is one of the subcatchments of the Lake Victoria Basin. Extending 3,600km2, it has a steep gradient upstream but gentle downstream in the Kano Plains, where the rivers dissipate into wetlands before discharging into Lake Victoria. Flooding is a recurrent phenomenon in the lower reaches of the Rivers Nyando, NyaidhoNyalbiego, Asawo and Awach, with devastating effects, including damage to school property. Consequently, pupils lose many school days and many schools remain closed for weeks. Some schools are also used

Samuel O. Ochola, Bernhard Eitel and Daniel O. Olago734

as evacuation centres for flood victims, thus interfering with the learning process. Only schools in the floodprone areas of the catchment were assessed for this study. The primary schools assessed are distributed across nine education zones; 13 in Awasi, 27 in Ahero, 6 in Chemelil, 3 in Ombeyi, 14 in Nyang’oma, 12 in Masogo, 8 in Pap Onditi, 6 in Lisana and 15 in Katito. Five among them are privately owned.

Figure 1 Location of study area and the 130 assessed school

Source: Author (Samuel Ochola)

Figure 2 Number of schools impacted by floods in 2006 around Lake Victoria, by district

Source: FEWSNET (2006).


Numerous major floods occurred in the last 75 years, causing severe flooding.2 Recent flooding was experienced in December 2006, May–June 2007 and March 2008. FEWSNET (2006) reported that 30 schools, 28 classrooms and 11 toilets in Nyando District were substantially damaged by the 2006 floods (see Figure 2).3 To minimize disasters in the schools, vulnerability of the school buildings to floods must be reduced through improved construction standards. This study maps the extent of flooding hazard to assess the vulnerability of the schools, in order to promote retrofitting of school buildings to withstand inundation and prevent future disasters and damages. It recommends a hastened rehabilitation of classrooms, toilets and other school facilities and the provision of replacement desks and teaching materials. Reducing vulnerability of schools to flooding, a nationwide problem, will require a combination of national and local sitespecific building standards.

Kenya’s national disaster management policyIn 2002, Kenya formulated a National Policy on Disaster Management to institutionalize mechanisms for addressing disasters (GoK, 2004b). The policy emphasises preparedness on the part of the government, communities and other stakeholders in disaster risk reduction activities. It aims to establish and strengthen disaster management institutions, partnerships, networking and mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction in the development process so as to improve the resilience of vulnerable groups to cope with potential disasters. It calls for the establishment of a National Disaster Management Agency (NADIMA) through an Act of Parliament. The policy integrates disaster risk reduction in the national development process—including through the MediumTerm Expenditure Framework, Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), National Development Plan, National Poverty Eradication Plan, Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (ERS) and HIV/AIDS Policies. NADIMA is managed by a board, while the National Platform draws its membership from key line ministries, local authorities, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), communitybased organizations, development partners, local UN offices and other stakeholders (GoK, 2004b) (see Figure 3). Establishing NADIMA was a step in the right direction for the coordination of disaster reduction. Given the proposed framework, however, the agency is likely to suffer from coordination and role problems by working with government ministries and districts instead of establishing hazard and catchmentspecific coordination centres. Each government ministry budgets independently and their employees are ill prepared for specific disaster reduction strategies. The most appropriate personnel in the country in disaster reduction are not necessarily found in government ministries.

Kenya’s primary school infrastructureSchool buildings throughout Kenya are generally in a state of poor repair, and there are not enough classrooms, water or sanitary facilities for the increasing number of


Source: GoK (2004b, p. 28).

Figure 3 Proposed National Disaster Management Agency institutional framework

children attending school (World Bank, 2006b). Since 2003, there has been major investment in primary schools through DFID and the Kenyan Constituencies Development Fund (CDF). On a global scale, DFID is spending £8.5 billion pounds ($14 billion) over ten years to ensure that, by 2015, children in subSaharan Africa and South Asia complete at least five years of quality education (DFID, 2008). In Kenya, DFID is working closely with the government to improve both the access to and the quality of schooling; it is advocating for the removal of financial barriers that deny children educational opportunities (DFID, 2008). In Kenya alone, DFID committed £55 million ($91 million) to the education sector in 2005–10 to support the Kenya Education Sector Support Programme (DFID, 2008). This assistance is to provide teaching and learning materials, enhance teachers’ skills, and provide school assistance grants to early childhood development centres; it also aims to support the provision of school infrastructure for new and rehabilitated primary school classrooms, while enhancing water and sanitation facilities. For Kenya’s 18,500 public primary schools, DFID’s support has helped develop a decentralized system for textbook procurement; it has also allowed for the establishment of bank accounts and special committees, disbursement of grants and public display of receipts and expenditures, leading to greater transparency and accountability. Given these expenditures on books and learning materials, it is vital for schools in floodprone areas to protect such investments.


Kenya has embarked on formulating the Primary School Infrastructure Programme Design to produce guidelines for primary school building standards, design and supervision of basic construction works and maintenance procedures. Poor primary school infrastructure is one of the major barriers to improving access to primary education in Kenya (GoK, 2005b). Empirical data shows that physical facilities are an important factor in both school attendance and achievement. Over time, communities and parents have been responsible for and have made substantial investments in school infrastructure. Development partners, churches, NGOs and individuals have also contributed, often in support of community initiatives. However, there has been a backlog in the provision of infrastructure and a shortage of permanent classrooms, particularly in poor communities (GoK, 2005b). Significant increases in primary school enrolment has placed an additional strain on existing school infrastructure, leading to poor conditions and overcrowding (GoK, 2005b). Some of the most severe infrastructure problems and shortages of permanent classrooms have been reported in poor districts such as Nyando District, where 61% of the population lives below the poverty line (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2003). The poor state of existing school infrastructure is the result of a lack of investment, poor construction standards, inadequate maintenance and difficulty in determining the exact backlog of school infrastructure accurately. The 2003 School Census estimated a nationwide shortfall of 43,000 classrooms (GoK, 2005b), although it is not clear what proportion of existing classrooms are makeshift. While the national average classroomtopupil ratio is 1:47, there are substantial variations at the district and subdistrict level. To achieve an average ratio of 1:50 in all districts, an estimated 14,700 new classrooms are required; the government and other stakeholders have thus been prompted to invest in rehabilitation (GoK, 2005b). It is expected that the adoption of school building standards by the CDF Committees will constitute an important step in this process. Kenya’s education system has experienced a rapid expansion. Despite a high level of expenditure, primary school enrolment declined from the early 1990s to 2003; following the introduction of free primary education in 2003, enrolment increased by 104%. With an estimated net primary school enrolment rate of 77%, however, the country is still far from achieving universal primary education. As expenditures have increased, resources within the education sector seem to have been earmarked for recurrent expenditure such as teachers’ salaries (Vos et al., 2004). As a result, classroom construction has not been prioritized. Kenya’s PRSP and ERS set the goal of reaching universal primary education by 2015 (GoK, 2004a). Given ongoing budget constrains, the government must allocate available resources efficiently to realize education targets. Universal primary education by 2015 and more costeffective spending of education resources—such as more trained teachers, enhanced textbook supplies and subsidies targeting the poor—were once considered reachable targets for Kenya (Vos et al., 2004); they now seem elusive. The Kenyan government initially boosted family demand for more schooling through discrete policy initiatives such as reducing the private cost of school attendance, offering food supplements at school and broadening secondary school opportunities for marginalized ethnic


and social groups (Bradshaw and Fuller, 1996). As attempts are being made to increase enrolment rates, the quality of classroom facilities should improve. According to Alwy and Schech (2004), the ethnoregional disparities created by the colonial and the early postcolonial periods are still significant in Kenya, and students in provinces with little or no political power have been disadvantaged at the expense of those from where the ruling elite hailed. In Kenya, ‘the issues of access to schools, distribution of qualified teachers and other educational resources are equity issues’ (Alwy and Schech, 2004). The quest for universal primary education should be coupled not only with attaining a 100% enrolment rate, but also with the provision of adequate and disasterresilient facilities and the targeting of politically disadvantaged communities.

Why vulnerability?Various definitions of vulnerability have emerged in the natural disaster mitigation, food aid and emergency relief communities. Timmermann (1981) argues that ‘vulnerability is a term of such broad use as to be almost useless for careful description at the present, except as a rhetorical indicator of areas of greatest concern’. Liverman (1990) notes that vulnerability ‘has been related or equated to concepts such as resilience, marginality, susceptibility, adaptability, fragility and risk’. Füssel (2007) adds exposure, sensitivity, coping capacity, criticality and robustness to this list.4 Schneiderbauer (2007) presents a review of the definitions on risk and vulnerability to natural disasters from a broader to a more focused perspective. Like Füssel, Schneiderbauer assumes that there is no single ‘correct’ or ‘best’ conceptualization of vulnerability that would fit all contexts. Instead, this interpretation builds on the diversity of various disciplines and definitions. Yet assessing vulnerability to natural hazards can be regarded as an illstructured problem, one for which there is no unique, identifiable, objectively optimal solution (Rashed and Weeks, 2003; Villagrán de León, 2006). A hazard map alone is not sufficient to inform flood managers and decisionmakers about vulnerabilities to floods. In a vulnerability assessment, it is important to map out the distribution and locations of the vulnerabilities and potential loss to inform hazardrelated decisionmaking (UN–HABITAT, 2001). In order to make efficient use of mitigation resources, it is not enough to know whether, when or even where a hazard event will strike. Knowing vulnerabilities is vital to predisaster planning efforts (NOAA, 1999); there is a pressing need for vulnerability studies to inform both the strategy for flood management in the Lake Victoria Basin and a disaster management policy.

Materials and methodsGeographic information system (GIS) techniques were used in the delineation of flood hazard zones and vulnerability assessments. Using the software ArcGIS® 9.2,


11 topographic maps at the scale 1:50,000 were digitized and georeferenced for catchmentwide GIS work. The Nyando District road map, updated in 2003, was digitized as the base map for road assessment. Elevation data from an unfinished Shuttle Radar Topography Mission and a Landsat image showing the flood extent on 18 May 2003 were obtained from the University of Maryland (Global Land Cover Facility, n.d.). The data was used to generate a highresolution digital topographic image of the study area (USGS, 2004). Secondary data about the schools was taken from the District Education Office in Awasi and collected during fieldwork using a handheld Garmintm eTrex® Global Positioning System (GPS) and interviews with local communities. The flood hazard and vulnerability assessment were carried out as follows.

Flood hazard assessment

A hazard is a potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon, substance, situation or human activity that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation (UNISDR, 2002, p. 24; Abarquez and Murshed, 2004, p. 7). A hazard does not automatically lead to a disaster (UNISDR, 2007a). Fieldwork was carried out during the floods of November 2006– January 2007 and May–June 2007. Participatory flood hazard assessments were also used with local communities in Kalwande Village in Kochogo, Magina, Ngere Kagoro and Kamworo Village in Kakmie sublocation, all of which are in the lower reaches of the rivers. Knowledge of the authors and information on past floods were used in selecting these locations. The flood hazard map was created using a weighting and ranking technique. Hazard mapping is an essential step in the determination of the past and potential locations of flooded areas. All disasters are unique since each affected region of the world has different social, economic and baseline health conditions (Landesman, 2005, ch. 5). In the past, GIS models based on index assessment have been used to evaluate environmental hazards (Forte, Pennetta and Strobl, 2005; Bolt, 1975; Yalcin and Akyurek, 2004). Such an approach takes into consideration the factors causing the flood conditions. The purpose of weighting is to express the importance of each criterion relative to other criteria (Tanavud et al., 2004). The more important criterion has the greater weight in the overall evaluation, as was applied to landslides by Pachauri and Pant (1992). Weighted ranking was applied taking a whole range of parameters, Landsat images and historical records unique to the area. A weighted index was assigned depending on distance from the rivers and drainage canals, soil type, rainfall zone, slope/altitude, the extent of the flood events in the years 2002–07, drainage density, land use type, road type and density and participatory flood maps drawn by local communities. This technique involved a numerical system based on biophysical factors that are directly or indirectly correlated with the occurrence of floods and the severity of their impact. The factors were weighted according to their relative importance to each other and to their expected importance in causing floods. Each factor was


ascribed a ranking value from 1 to 14. The higher the ranking value, the more susceptible the particular factor to the occurrence of floods. Distance from rivers, soil type, elevation and rainfall were chosen as the most influential factors for evaluating the flood hazard of a municipality. Slope was the least important since it is nearly uniform on the floodprone area. The selection of factors and subfactors for the generation of the flood hazard map was based on floodrelated publications and on the author’s knowledge of Kano Plains. Each factor was then partitioned into subfactors, each of which was given a ranking value. For each factor, the weighted hazard ranking was obtained by multiplying its weight by the ranking value for the corresponding subfactor. The total estimated hazard was obtained by adding the weighted flood rankings of all the factors. Using the Inverse Distance Weighted Spatial Analyst tool in ArcGIS® 9.2, the results were classified in four zones (see Figure 4).

Vulnerability assessment

A vulnerability assessment was carried out based on criteria developed using a weighting and ranking technique. This method was developed in this study based on physical factors directly or indirectly correlated to the flooding. Using weighting factors that account for the relationship between the vulnerability of the flood bearers and the main factors affecting this vulnerability (Gao, Nickum and Pan, 2007),

Figure 4 Flood hazard and vulnerability map of the flood-prone area



weighting factors were developed with special reference to the study area. In all, 104 primary schools and 26 secondary schools were assessed. Fieldwork was conducted during and after the December 2006–January 2007 flooding. Accessibility was difficult and, therefore, most of the schools were accessed on foot as the floodprone area has impassable roads even during the dry seasons. At each school, GPS coordinates, altitude, floor elevation above the ground level, building material used on the walls, school compound slope, soil type, observable efforts to minimize floods and the type of road to the school were recorded. The vulnerability components are summarized in equation (1).

school vulnerability = structural features, infrastructure and local topography, flood control & mitigation effort

= f [F, W] [C, S, R] [E] (1)

where

F = floor elevation W = material used for wall construction and its present nature C = school compound flatness S = soil type R = type of road to the school and distance from asphalt road E = evident effort by school to control or mitigate floods on school property

Each factor was further partitioned into subfactors, each of which was given a ranking value. The higher the score, the more vulnerable the factor or subfactor to floods. The total vulnerability index was calculated by adding the score from all the subfactors for each school. The estimated vulnerability, obtained by adding the weighted rankings of all the factors, was classified into three categories: vulnerable, marginally vulnerable and not vulnerable (see Table 1): The vulnerability categories were then classified as vulnerable (17–24), marginally vulnerable (9–16) and not vulnerable (1–8) based on the total estimated vulnerability scores.

Findings and discussionDistribution of schoolsMost schools in the floodprone area are found along roads, regardless of road conditions. Their distribution is determined by the clans and churches that donated the land for their construction. Of the 104 primary schools, 5 are privately owned by individuals or companies and 99 are public; only 2 out of the 26 secondary schools are privately owned. The private schools have better buildings than the public ones, which tend to be neglected, although some have received donor support and thus have good facilities. Due to pressure from the local population, some schools have even sprung up in areas that were formerly wetlands. Figure 1 shows the locations of schools assessed for this study.


Vulnerability of schools

All the 130 schools in the floodprone area (104 primary schools and 26 secondary schools) were assessed. Only 12 primary schools were found not vulnerable to floods; they represent 12% of the total primary schools assessed. Fifty primary schools (48%) and 42 (40%) were found to be marginally vulnerable and vulnerable, respectively (see Figure 5). Primary schools vulnerable to floods in Nyando River catchment are distributed close to rivers. Of the 26 secondary schools, five (19%) were found not to be vulnerable to floods, whereas 73% and 8% were marginally vulnerable and vulnerable, respectively (see Figures 4 and 5).

Table 1 Weighted school vulnerability ranking for Nyando River catchment

Factor Weighting Sub-factor Ranking

Floor elevation 1 Not raised 3

Slightly raised 2

Adequately raised 1

Wall type 1 Mud 6

Timbre 5

Iron sheets 4

Bricks 3

Blocks 2

Stones 1

Compound 1 Flat 3

Gentle 2

Steep 1

Soil 1 Clay 3

Sandy 2

Stony 1

Flood control efforts 1 None 4

Inadequate 3

Moderately adequate 2

Adequate 1

Road to school 1 Clay 5

Sandy 4

All weather up to gate 3

Asphalt all weather to gate 2

Asphalt up to gate 1


Figure 5 Proportion of school vulnerability

Most homes are as vulnerable as schools, which compounds the effects of floods on school buildings. In some areas, some of the oldest schools had the most dilapidated facilities; some new schools had the best facilities, especially those that were privately owned. New public schools, however, had inadequate and sometimes just temporary buildings since some clans desire to have their own schools regardless of the lack of resources. Some pupils attended distant schools because the nearer ones did not belong to their clan. Among the nine educational zones in the floodprone area, school vulnerability was highest in Ahero Zone followed by Masogo and Nyang’oma Zones, respectively (see Figure 6).

Figure 6 School vulnerability in the flood-prone area, by education zone

Note: The figures above the bars show the total number of schools in each zone.Source: Author (Samuel Ochola)



In addition to lacking investment in school infrastructure, Ahero, Masogo and Nyang’oma have the poorest feeder and rural access road networks. Most of the schools were located in remote areas.

Vulnerability categories

Class 1: not vulnerableSchools in this category are resilient to floods (see Figure 7). They have adequately raised floors, benefit from adequate effort in minimizing floods (at least within their jurisdiction) and stand on gently inclined to steep compounds. Some of them have asphalt roads up to the gate, making them readily accessible during floods. Their buildings are constructed of bricks, blocks or stones. However, a number of them still have floors that are not adequately raised. Some of their nonessential buildings are in the marginally vulnerable category, requiring construction to elevate classroom floors above inundation levels. During flooding, these schools remain functional and accessible, and their buildings and school property avoid destruction.

Class 2: marginally vulnerableThe vast majority of schools are in this category. They tend to have mixed features, such as slightly raised classroom floors, brick walls (some of which are not yet completed), gentle and flat school compounds, allweather roads and some evidence of flood mitigation efforts (see Figure 8). However, most of these schools are located on flat areas with black cotton soils, which means that they are even vulnerable to roof runoff. During flooding, most of these schools are rendered inaccessible and some buildings get flooded. A typical marginally vulnerable school

Figure 7 Not vulnerable:

Chemelil Sugar Academy (combined

primary and secondary school)


Figure 9 Vulnerable:

Konim Primary School


Figure 8 Marginally vulnerable:

Onjiko Primary School



was found to have the various classrooms walls made of different materials: bricks, iron sheets, timber and mud. A majority of them also have muddy roads that are impassable during rains. A few of the schools have resilient buildings but their compounds collect stagnant water, a sign that no floodmitigation efforts have been made (such as digging drainage channels). A number of these schools have been used as evacuation centres by the Kenya Red Cross during floods.

Class 3: vulnerableThe number of schools in this category—the least resilient—is high. Their floors have not been raised, most of their classrooms are made of earth, they have impassable rural access roads, they are constructed on flat ground and some of them were built on areas that were previously wetlands. These schools exhibit no signs of efforts to drain standing water or prevent runoff from entering the buildings. Some classroom walls are falling apart. However, none of the secondary schools in this category have earthen walls. Their vulnerability stems from other factors, such as roads (see Figure 9). Most of these schools are located in remote places, near riverbanks. During floods, they are inaccessible or their attendance drops drastically because the surrounding villages are also highly vulnerable, so that the pupils are displaced with their families. Most of these schools need better buildings and elevated floors. Most schools have put up brick buildings, replacing the earth that was previously common in the study area. However, nearly all of them still retain the old tradition of designing classrooms with floors at the ground level. This practice makes classrooms vulnerable to floods and even to rain water from the roofs. It was observed that a number of schools had allocated the better buildings to the youngest pupils. In some cases, however, the youngest pupils were housed in the vulnerable mud buildings that risked falling apart. Even schools with an annual inundation ‘ritual’ make little effort to elevate classroom floors with funds from the CDF kitty. Sometimes the funds are not adequate, but construction supervisors must make an effort to raise building foundations. Most teachers made the commendable decision to allocate the best classes to the youngest age groups. A complete school in Kenya should have eight classes to accommodate Standards 1 to 8. However, some schools have only 5 or 6 classrooms, forcing some children to learn under trees and some lower grades to be combined.

Safety and hygiene after floods

Inundation also presents safety and hygiene threats to school children and other school personnel. Some schools have inadequate desks and earthen floors, forcing some pupils to sit on floors or stones. Damp classroom floors are a health menace; school authorities and stakeholders should make an effort to clean the classrooms and only resume use when the floors are dry. A number of pit latrines sunk after the floods, including at Obugi Primary School. This is a safety threat to the school community. There is need to ensure proper construction and layout of foundations


that are stable during wet seasons and during floods. Although some of the vulnerable classrooms are ‘death traps’ with roofs hanging dangerously and walls falling apart, they were still occupied by schoolchildren during the research. Cemented floors should be a minimum standard regardless of the wall construction material. School authorities should detach and clear dilapidated structures to avoid injury to school children. Wind hazard is another common phenomenon in the area. Therefore, those charged with construction and supervision should make every effort to tie roofs to the walls adequately. Ahero and Rae Girls’ High Schools took the commendable precautionary measure of requiring gum boots during the admission of new students; this decision helps prevent waterborn diseases and sets an example for others (at least secondary schools).

When schools are also evacuation centres

Tensions occur when school buildings are used to accommodate flood victims. In such cases, schools face the challenge of serving as evacuation centres while continuing to provide school services. Students and teachers have to cope with noisy families. The schools have no choice in the matter since the communities in need are the same that donated most of the land on which schools were built. The general sense of ownership among members of the communities leads them to expect school to serve as flood refuges. The Daily Nation reported on people’s fears in 2007 (Ochieng’, 2007):

From the time we reopened after the Christmas break, we have not had any meaning ful studies going on here because of persistent interference from these people.

Unless they are moved away soon, our students are bound to lose out heavily.

How am I supposed to go back and start afresh without any help from the Government? I have no house at my home.

We are not moving from here anytime soon. Our homes are still flooded.

Until a longterm solution is found within an Integrated Flood Management through provision of proper flood shelters, schools shall remain the best refuge for most displaced families. The recent definition and articulation of Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction marks a significant step forward. The standards are intended to increase the accountability of education providers to affected communities, the government, the internal management of individual agencies and donors (UNESCO, 2006, pp. 5 –6). They provide guidance on how national governments, other authorities, and national and international agencies may respond and establish education programmes in emergency settings (INEE, 2004). For some time, the urban children have been considered more likely than their rural counterparts to realize the dream of fully participating in school (Mugisha, 2006). This observation has mainly been attributed to the ‘urban


advantage’ associated with increased access to facilities such as schools in urban areas. School enrolment is higher in urban nonslum than in urban slum areas; it is higher in slums than in rural areas up to age 9 for girls and 11 for boys, but it declines faster among older slum children than among their rural counterparts. At 13 years of age for boys and 14 for girls, enrolment among rural children begins to decline visibly (Mugisha, 2006). Children learning in hazardprone areas should also be seen as disadvantaged.

Building standards, financing and legislationKenya’s education evolution over the last four decades has been marked by important achievements and challenges (GoK, 2005a). Since 1963, education sector development has been centred on issues of access, retention, participation, equity, quality, relevance and financing (GoK, 2003; 2004c; 2005a). There has been a lack of adequate funding, formulation of standards and regulations for school buildings in the study area. It is thus important for future efforts to address the quality of school buildings, especially with the introduction of the CDF, to construct schools that are more floodresistant in Nyando, Nyakach and Muhoroni Constituencies. The CDF was established in 2003 through the CDF Act in The Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 107 (Act No. 11) of 9 January 2004 (KIPPRA, 2007). The fund aims to control imbalances in regional development brought about by partisan politics. It targets all constituencylevel development projects, particularly those aiming to combat poverty at the grassroots. The fund comprises an annual budgetary allocation equivalent to 2.5% of the government’s ordinary revenue. A motion seeking to increase this allocation to 7.5% of government’s revenue was recently passed in the parliament. Seventyfive percent of the fund is allocated equally among all 210 constituencies. The remaining 25% is allocated as per constituency poverty levels. Expenses for running project offices are not to exceed 3% of annual constituency allocations and 5% is kept aside as emergency reserve (GoK, 2007). Each CDF committee then decides at the local level which projects to prioritize, be it education, water, roads, health or other areas. Nyando Constituency allocated 46.17% of its KES 34.3 milion ($457,333) for the 2005–06 financial year to school buildings (CDF, 2008). With half of its budgetary allocation spent on school buildings, it should ensure that these buildings are floodresistant as advocated by the new National Disaster Management Policy. In the 2004–05 financial year, Muhoroni Constituency spent 37.74% of its budget on schools. A large amount of money (KES 4.8 million or $64,000) was spent on renovation and reconstruction of primary schools (CDF, 2008). Most of these schools had been destroyed by floods or wind storms. In view of such high allocations devoted to reconstruction, construction codes must be enforced for schools to minimize future damages and wastage of public funds, particularly in floodprone areas. As UNESCO and UNEP (2004) similarly noted, because of resource preservation, a


school building is a major local investment and rebuilding it places a heavy financial burden on a community struck by a disaster. A safe school is one that is located in a hazardfree area, or one that has been constructed so as to withstand the hazards to which it is exposed. A safe school can be achieved through several complementary measures, such as land use planning, structural reinforcement (for earthquakes, landslides, hurricanes, explosions, toxic releases), flood proofing (for floods and tsunamis) and preparedness plans (UNESCO and UNEP, 2004; Pigozzi, 1999). In the Dominican Republic, for example, attempts have been made to reduce vulnerability of schools to natural disasters. Various agencies have clear roles and responsibilities for either design, construction, reconstruction after destruction, retrofitting, maintenance, repair after damage or rehabilitation (Commonwealth of Dominica, 1998). Authorities and stakeholders in Kenya could learn from such experience (Bentley Associates, 1998). Hazardprone areas stand to benefit from other countries’ school building standards in additional to national ones. In December 2004, the InterAgency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) launched the abovementioned Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction (INEE Minimum Standards), the first global tool to define a minimum level of educational quality in order to increase coordination, access and accountability. The minimum standards cover access and learning environment; teaching and learning; teachers and other education personnel; education policy and coordination; and focusing on the essential areas of community participation and utilization of local resources. Little evidence has been found on the impact of the INEE Minimum Standards handbook in Uganda, where only two institutions have formally adopted them in their policies and procedures (SullivanOwomoyela, 2006; Karpinska, 2008). In Pakistan, awareness of the standards is not pervasive among those working in the education sector (Karpinska, 2007); nevertheless, some organizations are beginning to use the standards amid concern over usurping national standards (WCRWC, 2006). Ongoing Jordan and Liberia case studies also hope to develop knowledge on specific interventions, strategies and methodologies for improving education access to all in conflict, emergencies, reconstruction and fragile state (SullivanOwomoyela and Brannelly, 2008). In Kenya, during the years 2005–09, the Foundation for the Refugee Education Trust and the United States Agency for International Development and their designated representatives facilitated the dissemination, promotion, training, piloting, monitoring and evaluation of the minimum standards. In Kenya, however, there is a tendency to concentrate on advocating and coordinating the minimum standards in refugee camps, for those displaced from Somalia and Sudan in refugee camps such as Kakuma. In comparison, hazardprone regions such as Nyando are low on the priority list. Like in other countries, NGOs in Kenya have a broad area of operations (Sommers, 2004); they could be of help to the Kenyan government in developing and implementing knowledge on specific interventions, strategies, and methodologies for improving education access in emergencies. This could take the form or


promoting some form of unification of INEE’s Minimum Standards to those of the Ministry of Education, in close consultation with local clans, communities and stakeholders.

Conclusions and recommendationsDue to local topography, an increase in the recurrence of floods and vulnerable school buildings, flooding inflicts damage to schools every year. It destroys valuable school buildings and property, leading to loss of school hours, which has a negative impact on educational standards. Most school buildings were constructed before residential houses; yet because they were built with limited knowhow and building materials that predate regulations, they tend to be vulnerable to floods. Since school funding has been hard to come by, most classroom walls were built of earth, making them highly vulnerable to floods. Now that the CDF is one of the main funding sources helping local communities cover construction and reconstruction costs, there is a need for floodresistant constructions. As became clear since the December 2006 and January 2007 flooding, most of the new investments were not able to withstand flooding. While total flood control may be unattainable, resilient school buildings can be achieved over time. Therefore, this paper recommends that minimum standards be adopted for floodresilient school buildings by the Ministry of Education, NADIMA, donors, private school owners, the Nyando, Muhoroni and the Nyakach CDF Committees in conjunction with local contractors and masons, the Nyando District Education Office and the Ministry of Roads in Nyando District in consultation with the communities and other stakeholders. These standards should complement the ongoing Primary School Infrastructure Programme Design in order to account for special geographical features of the area that might not be reflected in the overall countrywide designs. For each school, especially the vulnerable and marginally vulnerable ones, drainage trenches should be constructed around school compounds to drain runoff into rivers. This could be achieved with the help of community and school members to minimize labour costs where funds are not available. It is necessary to elevate all classroom, office building and toilet floors by at least 50cm or up to 1.5m above ground level, depending on the flood hazard zone; it is also essential to build floodproof foundations in future permanent constructions. Old buildings should be maintained through the addition of laterite on floors and doorsteps and through the renovation the walls. Schools documents and books should be stored in steel shelves and drawers raised well above flood levels, instead of in wooden furniture currently popular in most schools. Latrines and toilet facilities should also have welldesigned foundations to withstand the floods and the high water table; the schools acting as evacuation centres should be assisted in building extra sanitary facilities to accommodate the ‘visitors’.


This paper recommends communitylevel workshops addressing vulnerability reduction in schools, accompanied by learning from success stories in neighbouring schools. Head teachers should be encouraged to work on mitigation through NADIMA, Nyando District Education Office, District Disaster Committee, the Ministry of Education, the Flood Control Unit of the Ministry of Water, the Red Cross and NGOs. Local contractors and builders should be encouraged to familiarize themselves with flood resilience, flood proofing and mitigation techniques. Local town and urban councils should help in legislating stringent provisions for school building codes. There is need to prevent new schools from being built in highhazard areas in the ongoing Primary School Infrastructure Programme Design. Head teachers and their deputies have been charged with supervising construction, but they are not properly trained to undertake such technical tasks. Roles must be defined in the ongoing building standards formulation, and Kenyan standards must be harmonized with those of the INEE to give the supervision docket to the right authority. Many roads in the floodprone area are impassable, making some schools inaccessible during the rainy seasons or even after a short downpour. The Ministry of Roads should prioritize making them accessible all year round to increase accessibility. The schools’ management and sponsors should provide and plan for dual purposes for the school as learning and evacuation centres in the short term, until an Integrated Flood Management approach is implemented. A handbook on vulnerability reduction approaches should be produced and distributed. Care should be taken in designing laboratories and when installing electricity in schools; electrical outlets must be placed above inundation levels in order to avoid other floodrelated disasters and fires. School authorities need help from the Ministry of Education and NADIMA in balancing the task of hosting flood victims and continuing learning. Under a wider flood management strategy, it would be important to build flood shelters that could be used by local communities for other communal purposes. This would help relieve schools of the current tense learning atmosphere when homes are inundated.

AcknowledgementsThis study was funded by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) through a Ph.D. scholarship for Samuel O. Ochola at the University of Heidelberg. Fieldwork was partly funded by START under the START/PACOM Doctoral Fellowships. The authors are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for positive comments that helped shape this paper and to Eric O. Odada and Daniel O. Orwenjo for their comments on the research and the earlier versions of this paper. The authors also wish to acknowledge their field assistants, Peter Osore and Francis Orieny, who braved the persistent rains, mud, floods and long distances to remote villages to help map all the schools in the area under review.


CorrespondenceSamuel O. Ochola, Department of Environmental Studies and Community Development, Kenyatta University, P.O. Box 4384400100, Nairobi, Kenya. Telephone: +254 716 607 814. Email: [email protected].

Endnotes1 See Abagi and Odipo (1997); Mukudi (2004); UNESCO (2007); Wanzare (2002).2 Major floods occurred in 1937, 1947, 1951, 1957–58, 1961, 1964, 1985, 1988, 1997–98, 2002 and

2003 (WMO, GoK and APFM, 2004).3 As shown in Figure 2, the district suffered less damage than Busia, Siaya or Suba Districts on the

Kenyan side of Lake Victoria. 4 For an overview of the definitions of vulnerability, see Kasperson et al. (2005), UNU–EHS (2008),

Birkmann (2005); Alwang, Siegel and Jorgensen (2001).

ReferencesAbagi, O. and G. Odipo (1997) Efficiency of Primary Education in Kenya: Situational Analysis and Implica-

tions for Educational Reform. Discussion Paper No. DP 004/97. Nairobi: Institute of Policy Analysis and Research. p. 33.

Abarquez, I. and Z. Murshed (2004) Community-based Disaster Risk Management: Field Practitioners’ Handbook. Klong Luang, Pathumthani, Thailand: Asian Disaster Preparedness Center.

Alwang, J., P.B. Siegel and S.L. Jorgensen (2001) Vulnerability: A View from Different Disciplines. Discussion Paper Series No. 0115. Washington, DC: Social Protection Unit, World Bank. p. 60.

Alwy, A. and S. Schech (2004) ‘Ethnic Inequalities in Education in Kenya’. International Education Journal. 5(2). pp. 266–74.

Bentley Associates (1998) Plan to Reduce the Vulnerability of School Building to Natural Hazards in St. Kitts. Washington, DC: Organization of American States, United States Agency for International Development and European Community Humanitarian Office. pp. 27.

Birkmann, J. (2005) Danger Need Not Spell Disaster: But How Vulnerable Are We? Research Brief I. Bonn: United Nations University Press. p. 7.

Bolt, B.A. (1975) Geological Hazards: Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Volcanoes, Avalanches, Landslides, Floods. Berlin: Springer.

Bradshaw, Y.W. and B. Fuller (1996) ‘Policy Action and School Demand in Kenya: When a Strong State Grows Fragile’. International Journal of Comparative Sociology. 37(1–2). pp. 72–96.

Buchmann, C. (1999) ‘The State and Schooling in Kenya: Historical Developments and Current Challenges’. Africa Today, 46(1). pp. 95–117.

Central Bureau of Statistics (2003) Geographic Dimensions of Well-Being in Kenya: Where Are the Poor? From Districts to Locations. Vol. 1. Nairobi: Central Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Planning and National Development. p. 164.

Commonwealth of Dominica (1998) Plan to Reduce the Vulnerability of School Buildings to Natural Disasters Dominica. Santo Domingo: Organization of American States, United States Agency for International Development, European Community Humanitarian Office. p. 23.

CDF (Constituencies Development Fund) (2008) Project Status: Nyanza Province, Nyando. http://www. cdf.go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=17&id=84&Itemid=46.


DFID (Department for International Development) (2008) DFID’s Aid to Education. FEWSNET (2006) ‘Special Report: Kenya’s Lake Region, Short Rains Food Security Assessment’.

Nairobi: FEWSNET. p. 8.Forte, F., L. Pennetta and R.O. Strobl (2005) ‘Historic Records and GIS Applications for Flood Risk

Analysis in the Salento Peninsula (Southern Italy)’. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. 5(6). pp. 833–44.

Füssel, H.M. (2007) ‘Vulnerability: A Generally Applicable Conceptual Framework for Climate Change Research’. Global Environmental Change. 17(2). pp. 155–67.

Gao, J., J.E. Nickum and Y. Pan (2007) ‘An Assessment of Flood Hazard Vulnerability in the Dongting Lake Region of China’. Lakes & Reservoirs: Research and Management. 12(1). pp. 27–34.

Global Land Cover Facility (n.d.) Earth Science Data Interface. College Park, MD: University of Maryland. http://glcfapp.umiacs.umd.edu:8080/esdi/index.jsp.

GoK (Government of Kenya) (2003) National Conference on Education and Training, 27–29 November. Nairobi: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. p. 102.

GoK (2004a) Investment Programme for the Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation 2003–2007. Nairobi: Ministry of Planning and National Development. p. 92.

GoK (2004b) National Disaster Management Policy. Nairobi: Office of the President. p. 37.GoK (2004c) A Policy Framework for Education, Training and Research: Meeting the Challenges of Education,

Training and Research in Kenya in the 21st Century. Sessional Paper of 2004. Nairobi: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

GoK (2005a) Kenya Education Sector Support Programme 2005–2010: Delivering Quality Education and Training to All Kenyans. Nairobi: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

GoK (2005b) Kenya Education Sector Support Programme 2005 - 2010: Delivering Quality Education and Training to all Kenyans. Nairobi: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. p. 288.

GoK (2007) The Constituencies Development Fund (Amendment) Act. Nairobi: Government Printer. p. 54.

INEE (InterAgency Network for Education in Emergencies) (2004) Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction. London: INEE.

Kallaway, P. (2001) ‘The Need for Attention to the Issue of Rural Education’. International Journal of Educational Development. 21(1). pp. 21–32.

Karpinska, Z. (2007) An Evaluation of the INEE Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction: A Pakistan Case Study. London: The InterAgency Network for Education in Emergencies. p. 26.

Karpinska, Z. (2008) An Evaluation of the INEE Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction: A Uganda Case Study. London: The InterAgency Network for Education in Emergencies. p. 28.

Kasperson, J.X. et al. (2005) ‘Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change’. In J.X. Kasperson and R.E. Kasperson (eds.) Social Contours of Risk, Vol. II: Risk Analysis Corporations and the Globalization of Risk. London: Earthscan. pp. 245–85.

KIPPRA (Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis) (2007) Constituency Development Fund. http://www.kippra.org/Constituency.asp.

Landesman, L.Y. (2005) Public Health Management of Disasters: The Practice Guide. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.

Liverman, D.M. (1990) ‘Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change’. In R.E. Kasperson, et al. (eds.) Understanding Global Environmental Change: The Contributions of Risk Analysis and Management. Worcester, MA: Clark University. pp. 27–44.

Mugisha, F. (2006) ‘School Enrollment among Urban Nonslum, Slum and Rural Children in Kenya: Is the Urban Advantage Eroding?’ International Journal of Educational Development. 26(5). pp. 471–82.


Mukudi, E. (2004) ‘Education for All: A Framework for Addressing the Persisting Illusion for the Kenyan Context’. International Journal of Educational Development. 24(3). pp. 231–40.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) (1999) Vulnerability Assessment. NOAA Coastal Services Center. http://www.csc.noaa.gov/products/nchaz/htm/tut.htm.

Ochieng’, J. (2007) ‘Learning Suffers as Many Flood Victims Overstay their Welcome’. Daily Nation. 24 January.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2004) Educational Facilities and Risk Management: Natural Disasters. Paris: OECD.

Pachauri, A.K. and M. Pant (1992) ‘Landslide Hazard Mapping Based on Geological Attributes’. Engineering Geology, 32(1–2). pp. 81–100.

Pigozzi, M.J. (1999) Education in Emergencies and for Reconstruction: A Developmental Approach. New York: UNICEF.

Rashed, T. and J. Weeks (2003) ‘Assessing Vulnerability to Earthquake Hazards through Spatial Multicriteria Analysis of Urban Areas’. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 17(6). pp. 547–76.

Schneiderbauer, S. (2007) Risk and Vulnerability to Natural Disasters: From Broad View to Focused Perspec-tive. PhD Thesis. Freie Universität Berlin.

Sifuna, D. (1991) ‘Research in Educational Inequality Issues and Policy Trends in Kenya’. Prospects. 21(2). pp. 277–86.

Sommers, M. (2004) Coordinating Education during Emergencies and Reconstruction: Challenges and Respon-sibilities. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning–UNESCO. p. 115.

SullivanOwomoyela, J. (2006) Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crisis, and Early Reconstruction: A Uganda Case Study. Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development and Creative Associates. p. 27.

SullivanOwomoyela, J. and L. Brannelly (2008) Protecting Positive Community Participation in Education during Emergencies and Reconstruction: Research Update, May 2008. Berkshire/Paris: CfBT Education Trust and UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning. p. 5.

Tanavud, C. et al. (2004) ‘Assessment of Flood Risk in Hat Yai Municipality, Southern Thailand, Using GIS’. Journal of Natural Disaster Science. 26(1). pp. 1–14.

Timmermann, P. (1981) Vulnerability, Resilience and the Collapse of Society. Toronto: Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto.

UNESCO (2006) Guidebook for Planning Education in Emergencies and Reconstruction. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.

UNESCO (2007) Policy Review Report: Early Childhood Care and Education in Kenya. Paris: UNESCO/OECD Early Childhood Policy Review Project. p. 42.

UNESCO and UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) (2004) APELL for Schools and Education Buildings: A Community-based Approach for School Safety and Education for Disaster Reduction. Paris: UNESCO and UNEP. p. 4.

UN–HABITAT (2001) Assessment of Vulnerability to Flood Impacts and Damages. Nairobi: Disaster Management Programme, UN–HABITAT. p. 32.

UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) (2007) Safe Schools and Learning Envi-ronment: How to Prevent and Respond to Violence in Refugee Schools—A Guide. Geneva: UNHCR.

UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction) (2002) Living with Risk: A Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives. Geneva: InterAgency Secretariat of the UNISDR.

UNISDR (2007a) Terminology: Basic Terms of Disaster Risk Reduction. http://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/libterminologyengp.htm.

UNISDR (2007b) Towards a Culture of Prevention: Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at School Good Practices and Lessons Learned. Geneva: UNISDR. p. 143.


UNU–EHS (United Nations University–Institute for Environment and Human Security) (2008) Core Terminology of Disaster Reduction. http://www.ehs.unu.edu/moodle/mod/glossary/view.php?id=1&mode=&hook=ALL&sortkey=&sortorder=&fullsearch=0&page=10.

USGS (United States Geological Survey) (2004) Shuttle Radar Topography Mission: Unfinished Kenya. College Park, MD: Global Land Cover Facility, University of Maryland. ftp://ftp.glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/glcf/SRTM/WRS2_Tiles/p169/SRTM_u03_p169r060/.

Villagrán de León, J.C. (2006) ‘Vulnerability: A Conceptual and Methodological Review’. SOURCE. No. 4. Bonn: United Nations University–Institute for Environment and Human Security.

Vos, R. et al. (2004) Achieving Universal Primary Education: Can Kenya Afford It? Department of Economics Working Paper. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut. p. 47.

Wanzare, Z.O. (2002) ‘Rethinking Teacher Evaluation in the Third World: The Case of Kenya’. Educational Management Administration Leadership. 30(2). pp. 213–29.

WCRWC (Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children) (2006) Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction: Darfur Case Study. New York: WCRWC. p. 27.

World Bank (2006a) Hazards of Nature, Risks to Development: An IEG Evaluation of World Bank Assistance for Natural Disasters. Washington, DC: Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank. p. 181.

World Bank (2006b) The Republic of Kenya Education Sector Support Project. Report No. 32629KE. Washington, DC: World Bank. p. 198.

WMO, GoK and APFM (World Meteorological Organization, Government of Kenya and Associated Programme for Flood Management) (2004) Strategy for Flood Management for Lake Victoria Basin, Kenya. Geneva: APFM. p. 144.

Yalcin, G. and Z. Akyurek (2004) In XXth ISPRS Congress: GeoImagery Bridging Continents. International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 12–23 July 2004, Istanbul, Turkey. Commission II papers, Vol. XXXV, part B2.

vulnerability of schools to floods in nyando river catchment, kenya

Documents