Tsu-balod or tsunami?: Making disaster terms understandable

Filipinos are now more aware of extreme natural disasters as major issues they will have to deal with especially in the aftermath of 3 major weather events and a seismic event – Ketsana (Ondoy) in 2009, Habagat in 2011 and 2012, the Bohol earthquake in 2013, and Haiyan (Yolanda) in November of the same year.

The frequency of these extreme events appears to be yearly and there is a need to integrate warning, response, and management of risks in a seamless and rapid manner as possible.

Emergency and disaster management (EM) is based on a cycle which follows 3 steps: 1) relief and rescue; 2) rehabilitation; and 3) resiliency planning. In all steps, technical terminology are used and has to be translated appropriately to communities.

Information disasters

Forecasting and warning techniques have improved as the government has invested much in efforts like Project NOAH and other related projects.

However, how forecasts can be translated into warnings and how these can be applied to local communities is the weakest link in the emergency management (EM) information chain.

A break in the chain in emergency management dissemination may be called an “information disaster.”

Information disasters may be triggered by a catastrophic event. In the case of a natural event, this can happen when knowledge management is well developed on the technical side but access to this is hampered by translational difficulties or logistical difficulties. Thus, the information does not reach the intended recipients.

How people search for information in a natural disaster has not been the focus of much research. This is not surprising since disaster events are rather rare.

However, with the advent of social media analytics, it is possible to study how people process disaster information and seek it in real time. It is necessary to find out what information is needed by people and what terms they use to describe a disaster event and how they use this.

In practice, all EM decision making is usually made at meetings by the relevant disaster management authorities. The effectiveness of this approach in EM is that the information reaches the intended target. The EM practitioner must be aware if meetings by which information is communicated, increases or lessens the vulnerability of communities.

Limitations in disaster message translation

People commonly perceive disasters to be the same. This perception is mediated by media which uses this to transmit or translate the information.

In the 1990s, when disaster risk perception started to become a focus of studies, majority of Americans got their disaster risk information, especially on weather, from television.

What is now called “mainstream media” tends to emphasize risks to build capital when communicating risk at the expense of natural capital affected by disasters. This is a fact demonstrated in post hurricane Katrina Louisiana. With the increasing domination of and easier access to social media sources, this emphasis will be diluted.

In Italy, a region prone to seismic events, a survey of media reports on various geohazards demonstrated that most media reports have a lack of accuracy. It also showed that while environmental reporting has more factual content, it tends to amplify the dangers of natural hazards without putting due emphasis on adaptation and risk mitigation.

The recommendation of science communicators in this situation is to properly “translate” science to less technical terms. However, the view of disasters by the science communicators and the professional scientists reveals a gap that is reflected on what aspect of disaster and emergency management should be emphasized.

Approach to disaster risk communication

Science, technology, and society (STS) approaches to science translation and communication is built on the sociology of science theories of Dr Ludwig Fleck, a Polish Jewish physician who did “science translational” studies on syphilis and other infectious diseases.

Fleck proposed that professional science practitioners belong to the esoteric “thought collectivity” and the lay people belong to the “exoteric” “thought collectivity.” The two groups have their own similar standards of objectivity. While individuals may objectively measure or sense a phenomenon, they see this with the eyes of their group. Here is where the “meaning gap” between the technical and the lay terms lie.

Fleck’s theories may be useful in our attempts to translate English disaster terms like “storm surge” to the Filipino languages. Academics and experts have proposed either to use “storm surge”or come up with portmanteaus like tsu-balod or bagnami among others.

However the Philippine languages have documented words for these types of hazards like daluyong, humbak and in old Batangas Tagalog as sapaw. This means people have an idea of what these events are. 

There is a theory that “Tacloban” may stem from a historical memory of regular storm storm flooding since “taclob” has this archaic meaning still. Some of these terms are still used to today but with a less disaster related meaning some of which now have sexual meanings. Would it be possible to recover these old meanings?

Some people have suggested we retain the English terms and give them vernacular meanings. However, this may be useful for urban communities where a degree of facility in English language exists.

However, in many of our island communities, English facility is low or even non-existent. I also noted that in some of my island field sites, some coastal communities have their own term for storm surge related to humbak. In one small island off Mindoro, the locals called it humbak ng tubig. Thus there is a need know what these communities call natural events. The country must come to a consensus of what terms to use and what the meaning is, noting the loss of technical meaning. This cannot just be imposed by experts in Manila or even by academics at the University of the Philippines, but will require knowing what people call natural hazards.

Some experts debate on the appropriateness of using tsunami for describing the Tacloban storm surge. This is true from the technical view, but I have recently spoken to a Filipino language elementary school teacher from Palo, Leyte who emphatically told me that people there have an idea what tsunami is and her kids would have understood “storm surge” if it were called mala-tsunami.

This is a fact that science communication practitioners in disaster risk will have to consider. Technical terms can be translated albeit with minor loss of meaning which the translator should be aware of. 

Diverse communities

I outlined the nature of science communication in disaster and emergency management and the limitations of translation directed from the technical and scientific end alone. This results in the persistence of the “science communication gap.”

STS approaches may be useful in the Philippine context since Filipino society is composed of varied cultures and traditions.

These diverse communities will have to communicate effectively using a common disaster risk language. Media – social and mainstream – will have to be familiar with the context in order to deliver the expected outcome of reduced vulnerability for human communities. – Rappler.com

Benjamin Vallejo Jr is a marine scientist and teaches environmental science, geography, and science, technology, and society courses. He heads the Science and Society Program of the College of Science, University of the Philippines, Diliman. His research work brings him and his students around the country where they observe the adaptations and resiliency of people to a changing environment.