By Pecier Decierdo
ON NOV. 6, 2013, the Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards (Project NOAH) released storm surge forecasts for the incoming Typhoon Yolanda, international name Haiyan. The forecasts included information on where the storm surges will hit, what time they will arrive, and how high they will be. The forecasts were updated every six hours.
The following day, a list of storm surge heights in affected areas was delivered to the Office of Civil Defense and the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council. On the eve of landfall, then-President Benigno Aquino III announced the storm surge forecasts on primetime television.
The storm made landfall around 4 a.m. of the next day, Nov. 8.
Later studies confirmed the accuracy of those forecasts. The storm surge arrived within a few hours of the predicted time and the projected heights were accurate to within fractions of a meter.
Given these facts, the aftermath of Yolanda, especially of its storm surges, don’t seem to make sense. If the scientists got it right, and if the science was communicated accurately and ahead of time, why was there still so much loss of life?
***
The example of Yolanda is a reminder of the importance and subtle art behind science communication. The old paradigm in science communication views the public as having a deficiency in scientific knowledge. To address this deficiency, experts will have to transmit accurate information to them. The public is then expected to make scientifically-informed decisions as a result. Called the “deficiency view” of science communication, we now know that it is naïve and, well, deficient.
Newer views of science communication see it as a conversation between the experts and the public. Like a good conversation, good science communication must be engaging and, more importantly, behavior-changing. In fact, good science communication changes people’s behavior precisely because it is engaging. This is called the ‘engagement view’ of science communication.
In the engagement view, it is not enough to provide the public with storm surge warnings in the form of tables of values. A better way to broadcast the surge warnings is in terms that allow the public to imagine in their minds what the effects will be. In other words, the warnings should aid their “disaster imagination.”
The engagement view also reminds us that it is not enough to send the message through traditional and new media. For most people, word of mouth that gets passed across their social networks is still the most action-inducing form of news. It is the job of science communicators to know how to use these social networks to leverage the spread of information. For example, in fishing or farming communities with no access to TV or radio, there will be members who can quickly cascade information throughout the entire village. These are the people the local government should talk to in the case of an impending calamity.
These are just a few aspects of science communication that we must remember if we want to avoid another disaster like Typhoon “Yolanda.” Because of climate change, extreme weather disturbances will be more frequent. However, if we communicate the science creatively and in an engaging manner, we can empower people to make scientifically informed decisions that just might save their lives when the next big disaster strikes.
Pecier Decierdo is a science communicator at The Mind Museum.
