Flood Warnings and Technical Language

Much of the time that I have written about language inconsistency and the use of jargon in messages, it has been focused on WILDFIRE.  Many previous posts to the Warning Gallery have pointed to the use of operational and technical language (Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 or Ready status, Set status, Go status) that has more meaning to responders and commanders than to the public.  In fact, we’ve published about the use of inconsistent language in the National Fire Protection Association Journal, showing how this can be problematic across jurisdictional boundaries.  Even more recently, as apps like Watch Duty monitor and report what is heard on radio communications and police scanners, that inconsistent language is repeated raising confusion among curious observers and persons at risk.

It should come as little surprise to learn that inconsistent messaging extends beyond wildfire to all of the hazards require alerts to initiate protective actions among those at risk, especially those that are widespread and cross county and state lines.  Most recently, I found jargon in the flood messages issued during the historic events in Washington where a significant hydrological event dumped significant amounts of water over several days across the Seattle region. 

These dire conditions were obvious signals that alerts were warranted, and my reading of the warnings posted to warn.pbs, public comments posted to social media accounts, and the reporting coming from the Pacific Northwest suggests that they have been quite effective at notifying, informing, and motivating people to prepare and to take action. 

To that, I say “well done!” emergency managers, and the public information officers working long hours in dispatch centers, emergency operations centers, and other command posts.  

What I do want to point out is how different these messages are from one jurisdiction to the next, for the same hazard and same protective actions.  As someone who likes to geek out about alerts and warnings, I’m fascinated by the variation between these messages. 

Let’s look at a few messages issued during this latest event in the Pacific Northwest to see how they varied. 

The first message was issued on behalf of Skagit County by the State of Washington Emergency Management Department. Here we find the use of "Ready, Set, Go" jargon that is commonly seen in wildfire messages. In this case it is included in the heading using the phrase "GO for Immediate Evacuation." Later in the message, there is a clarification of this operational language emphasizing "EVACUATE NOW."

This second message was sent by Whatcom County and it incorporates two types of technical jargon - Level 2 Evacuation and Get Set. Additional information is provided explaining that this means to prepare to leave or to leave early if you need more time.

In the third example, we find the use of plain language indicating the threat (dikes are expected to overtop), and the evacuation order that was put in place from the Sheriff's office (leave NOW) with additional instructions that evacuees should prepare to not return for several days.

In our fourth example, we find another use of jargon - a voluntary evacuation is in place. This was also issued by Whatcom County. The 90-character WEA says "GO NOW. Voluntary evacuation of Sumas issued. Shelters open in Lynden." This suggests that voluntary evacuation is associated with immediate action.

These four message types demonstrate the variety of approaches taken by alerting authorities to communicate rising flood waters, the need to prepare, advice to leave, and instructions to leave immediately. A closer look at each message will also show that they vary in the inclusion of some of the key contents that we generally assess messages for (source is missing in two messages; time is implied with the use of "NOW" or "the next few hours", lacking specificity).

Most important here is recognizing the variation of language across these four messages. In our prior work on public understanding of the use of "warning" and "order" for wildfire evacuations, we found a significant number of people were unable to correctly identify the protective actions associated with those terms. In dire conditions, when immediate action is necessary, searching for definitions to help make sense of the emergency alert will slow reactions, something that can prove costly.