another potential problem with "mitigation" is the confusion among many
people regarding whether mitigation is only post-event (mitigating the
losses) or pre-event and continuous (mitigating unacceptable risks).
perhaps those of us who are in this line of work may be getting closer
to consistency in terminology (e.g., the recent glossary at the ADRC
website [among others]), but getting such common understanding among
local stakeholders should prove to be much more difficult (especially
given the difficulty with language noted by anshu sharma) unless less
ambiguous words are used.
hopefully,
bob alexander
----- Original Message -----
From: anshu sharma <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: Better safe than....
> It is true that "mitigation" is a very accurate term for what we
> are trying to convey. However, we also need to consider the
> target audience. Terms like mitigation and vulnerability may work
> well with english speaking communities in developed countries, but
> they create problems when dished out to local people in the
> developing world. We have faced problems of a very basic nature,
> when we tried to look for equivalent terms in local languages and
> couldn't find any!
>
> Anshu Sharma
> SEEDS, India.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Musson, Roger MW
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 9:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Better safe than....
>
>
> It's a shame that "mitigation" is considered too difficult a
> word, because it is so accurate. It is "making things less bad".
> While I tend to be reticent when using this word to journalists, I
> have found recently that they are generally happy with it. Perhaps
> the phrase "mitigating circumstances" is so well known that the
> concept of mitigation is deemed to be widely understood despite
> the number of syllables. I have to say I don't think
> "vulnerability" is in any way an easier word.
>
> The trouble with some attempts to formulate a phrase in a
> positive way is that one loses the gist. "Community safety" has
> the right sense, but is too general (it suggests an anti-crime
> programme), and attempts to make it more specific end up being
> unwieldy: "Community safety from disasters".
>
> I think one really has a choice between "disaster mitigation"
> which is punchy and unambiguous, or phrases that are necessarily
> rather longer, like "making communities safer from disasters".
>
> Roger Musson
> BGS
> -----Original Message-----
> From: anshu sharma [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 23 February 2004 11:34
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Better safe than....
>
>
>
> Aren't terms like prevention, mitigation, risk or
> vulnerability reduction suitable for processes? And those too as
> viewed by practitioners and academicians? A little too clinical
> for the public? If the aim, as put by Ilan, is `..to grab,
> engage, and maintain the interest of teachers, students,
> professionals in other fields, and people walking down the
> street', why not use positive terms like `to be safe....' ?!
>
>
> Anshu Sharma
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Sanderson
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 2:21 PM
> Subject: Re: The Disaster Name Game
>
>
> It's been a good development to apply the phrase 'disaster
> risk reduction',
> as something that is more understandable than preparedness
> or mitigation,
> which, as technical terms, aren't.
>
> The livelihoods and insurance worlds give shocks and
> stresses, which are
> useful for disaggregating sudden impact from slower but
> often no less
> ghastly events.
>
> Vulnerability is a helpful and understandable word - being
> vulnerable is a
> pretty clear concept that implies both an external issue
> that causes
> vulnerability (the risk), and that you can perhaps do
> something about it to
> be less vulnerable.
>
> David Sanderson
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brugnot Gérard [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 20 February 2004 10:13 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The Disaster Name Game
>
> In French prévention/prevention applied to risks seems to be
> a good
> compromise.
> It generally includes preparedness and excludes crises
> management and
> recovery.
> It is used in the field of health "médecine préventive" vs
> "médecine curative".
> The meaning might be slightly different in English.
>
> Gérard Brugnot
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Ilan Kelman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Envoyé : jeudi 19 février 2004 22:10
> À : [log in to unmask]
> Objet : The Disaster Name Game
>
>
> The activities of our field have many names including
> disaster risk
> reduction, building resilience, vulnerability reduction,
> risk management,
> adaptation, mitigation, prevention, pre-disaster actions,
> and variations of
> each phrase, often with other words used including
> emergency, preparedness,
> prevention, hazard management, and (dare I mention it?) the
> intriguing "homeland security". Many of the phrases and the
> discussions of their
> meanings are appropriate in professional, scientific, and
> political venues.
>
> I have yet to find a solid, meaningful phrase which can be
> used for
> publicity--to grab, engage, and maintain the interest of
> teachers, students,
> professionals in other fields, and people walking down the
> street. "Stopping disasters" might be reasonable, but seems
> contradictory because a
> disaster by definition has happened, so it is too late to
> stop it. What
> should be used instead? Suggestions include "Risk
> Reduction", "Disaster
> Mitigation", "Stopping Disaster Impacts", and "Preventing
> Disasters".
> A simple yet powerful phrase, particularly one generally
> accepted by our
> community, would help the media to promote our messages
> while reaching out
> to the majority of the population. I seek neither
> definitions nor
> justifications of vocabularies; simply words that work.
>
> Or perhaps this ideal is a waste of time to try to achieve
> because (a) it
> trivialises our work, (b) it does not exist, and (c) it
> would be too
> dependent on the whims of public opinion and public
> perception which cause
> many of the problems we face. Would it be better to retain
> the myriad of
> phrases, with selection each time based on the audience
> addressed and the
> specific interests of the speaker?
>
> Although this debate is in English, suggestions and ideas
> from other
> languages (preferably with an English explanation--
> apologies!) would be
> highly relevant. Many thanks for any thoughts,
> Ilan
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Surf the net and talk on the phone with Xtra Jetstream @
> http://www.xtra.co.nz/products/0,,5803,00.html !
>
>
>
>
>
*********************************************************************
This e-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, are
> confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If
> this message was not addressed to you, you have received it in error
> and any copying, distribution or other use of any part of it is
> strictly prohibited. Any views or opinions presented are solely
> those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the
> British Geological Survey. The security of e-mail communication
> cannot be
> guaranteed and the BGS accepts no liability for claims arising
> as a
> result of the use of this medium to transmit messages from or to the
> BGS. . http://www.bgs.ac.uk
>
> *********************************************************************
>
|