Aeta Response to Eruption

5

5

International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters

March 2006, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 5-43

Traditional Societies in the Face of Natural Hazards:

The 1991 Mt. Pinatubo Eruption and

the Aetas of the Philippines

Jean-Christophe Gaillard

Laboratoire Territoires, UMR PACTE 5194 CNRS

Institut de Géographie Alpine

14 bis, avenue Marie Reynoard

38100 Grenoble

France

[email protected]

This article explores the response of traditional societies

in the face of natural hazards through the lens of the concept

of resilience. Resilient societies are those able to overcome

the damages brought by the occurrence of natural hazards,

either through maintaining their pre-disaster social fabric,

or through accepting marginal or larger change in order to

survive. Citing the case of the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption in

the Philippines and its impact on the Aeta communities who

have been living on the slopes of the volcano for centuries, it

suggests that the capacity of resilience of traditional societies

and the concurrent degree of cultural change rely on four

factors, namely: the nature of the hazard, the pre-disaster socio-

cultural context and capacity of resilience of the community,

the geographical setting, and the rehabilitation policy set up

by the authorities. These factors significantly vary in time and

space, from one disaster to another. It is important to perceive

their local variations to better anticipate the capability of

traditional societies to overcome the damage brought by the

occurrence of natural hazards and therefore predict eventual

cultural change.

6 International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters

Introduction

Natural hazards are those natural phenomena that pose a threat

to people, structures and economic assets. Natural hazards include

earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, tsunamis, storms and

cyclones, droughts, floods and storm surges among others. The

response capacity of people in the face of natural hazards is defined

by the concepts of vulnerability and resilience.

Early definitions of vulnerability mostly referred to the quantitative

degree of potential loss in the event of the occurrence of a natural hazard

(e.g., United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs 1992). The

concept eventually evolved to encompass the wider social context in

what is commonly called ‘social vulnerability’. Social vulnerability

may be defined as the propensity of a society to suffer from damage

in the event of the occurrence of a given hazard (D’Ercole 1994:

87-88). Vulnerability thus stresses the condition of a society which

makes it possible for a hazard to become a disaster (Cannon 1994:

13). It basically depends on a large array of factors which interact

in systemic (D’Ercole 1994) and causal directions (Watts and Bohle

1993; Wisner et al. 2004). These factors are demographic, social,

cultural, economic and political in nature. It is further important to

recognize that vulnerability reflects the daily conditions of society

(Maskrey 1989; Wisner 1993). Disasters are therefore viewed as the

extension of everyday hardships wherein the victims are marginalized

in three ways: geographically because they live in marginal hazard-

prone areas, socially because they are poor, and politically because

their voice is disregarded (Wisner et al. 2004). Vulnerability further

varies according to the nature of the hazard (Wisner 2004).

People’s capability of response in the face of natural hazards also

relies on their capacity of resilience. This concept spread widely in the

disaster literature in the 1990s and is still the object of a conceptual

debate around its sense and application among social scientists (e.g.,

Klein et al. 2003). Pelling (2003: 48) views resilience as a component

of vulnerability or the ability of an actor to cope with or adapt to hazard

stress. In this regard, it basically includes the planned preparation and

the spontaneous or premeditated adjustments undertaken in the face of

natural hazards. Other scholars (Folke et al. 2002: 13) define resilience

7Gaillard: Traditional Societies in the Face of Natural Hazards

as the “flip” (positive) side of vulnerability or the capacity to resist from

damage and change in the event of the occurrence of a natural hazard. A

third approach breaks away from the previous two to define resilience

as the capacity of a system to absorb and recover from the occurrence

of a hazardous event (Timmermann 1981: 21). Dovers and Handmer

(1992: 270) further distinguish three levels of societal resilience and

differentiate 1/ resilience through resistance to change; 2/ resilience

through incremental change at the margins and 3/ resilience through

openness and adaptability. The United Nations International Strategy

for Disaster Reduction (United Nations Inter-Agency Secretariat of

the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 2004) recently took

over this differentiation in its definition of resilience as “the capacity of

a system, community or society to resist or change in order that it may

obtain an acceptable level of functioning and structure”. Following

the same approach, Walker et al. (2004) differentiate four crucial

aspects of resilience. The first aspect is the latitude or the maximum

amount by which a system can be changed before losing its ability to

recover. The next dimension is the resistance or the ease or difficulty

of changing the system. The precariousness or how close the current

state of the system is to a limit or “threshold” is also of importance.

The final aspect is the panarchy or the cross-scale interactions and

influences from states and dynamics at scales above and below.

Resilience differs from vulnerability by addressing the capability

and the ways people deal with crises and disaster. On the other hand,

vulnerability only encompasses the susceptibility of individuals to

suffer from damage and thus to transform the occurrence of a natural

hazard into a disaster. Both concepts may rely on the same factors

(demographic, social, cultural, political, etc.) which may however

vary on different scales. Resilient societies are able to overcome the

damages brought by the occurrence of natural hazards, either through

maintaining their pre-disaster social fabric, or through accepting

marginal or larger change in order to survive. The concept of resilience

is thus intimately linked to the concept of change. Post-disaster

changes within the impacted society may be technological, economic,

behavioral, social or cultural in nature. The latitude and resistance to

change greatly depend on the type of society affected by the disaster.

The following paragraphs explore the case of traditional societies.


Traditional Societies in the Face of Natural Hazards

Traditional societies, sometimes called folk, tribal, or primitive

societies, are those groups characterized by their pre-industrial self-

sufficient ways of either hunting / gathering or extensive agriculture

type. These societies are further identified by the intimate relationship

they nurture with their immediate natural environment and the slow

level of cultural change they usually experience (Kottak 2003).

Many researchers have addressed the capacity of industrial

societies to overcome the havoc wrought by the occurrence of

natural hazards with more or less change in the social fabric (see

Drabek 1986; Bates and Peacock 1986; Nigg and Tierney 1993

and Passerini 2000 for syntheses). Fewer scholars discussed the

capability of traditional societies to cope with natural hazards. A

review of the scarce literature further denotes a lack of consensus

among social scientists. Three different theoretical frameworks may

be distinguished from the available corpus of research materials.

The first and dominant framework regards traditional

environment-dependent societies as fragile and unable to cope on

their own with large-scale fast-onset natural hazards. Destruction of

the environment due to extreme natural phenomena deprives these

societies of their main resources and pushes them to rely on external

resources in order to recover. Natural hazards are therefore viewed

as a powerful vector of socio-cultural change (Burton 1972; Burton,

Kates, and White 1993; Dynes 1976; Kates 1971; Kates et al. 1973;

Mileti, Drabek, and Haas 1975). Such an argument largely emanates

from the “top-down” technocratic and western logic characterizing

the dominant paradigm in the hazard and disaster literature. The

proponents of this approach find justification for promoting a transfer

of experience, knowledge and technology from industrialized

countries to developing nations in the poor capacity of traditional

societies to respond to natural hazards. This view takes advantage of

the results of several studies conducted following the 1943 to 1952

eruption of Paricutín volcano in Mexico (Nolan 1979; Nolan and

Nolan 1993), the 1951 eruption of Mt. Lamington in Papua New

Guinea (Belshaw 1951; Keesing 1952; Ingleby 1966; Schwimmer

1977), the 1961-1962 eruption of the volcano of Tristan de Cunha,

9

in the South Atlantic (Blair 1964; Munch 1964, 1970; Lewis,

Roberts, and Edwards 1972), the 1968 eruption of the volcano of

Nila in Maluku (Pannell 1999) and the 1994 eruption of Mt. Rabaul

in Papua New Guinea (To Waninara 2000).

On the other hand, the second theoretical framework sees

traditional societies as capable of recovering on their own from the

impact of natural phenomena. The environmental modifications

resulting from the occurrence of natural hazards forced these societies

to make slight adjustments without modifying the fundamentals of

their social organization (Sjoberg 1962; Torry 1978a, 1979). This

framework emerged from the growing anthropological literature

on hazards and disasters during the 1960s and 1970s (see Torry

1979 and Oliver-Smith 1996 for syntheses). The arguments of this

approach have greatly contributed to challenging the aforementioned

dominant and technocratic paradigm on disaster management by

pointing out the perverse effects of emergency measures and other

technological adjustments set up by western governments. For the

proponents of this approach, if there is temporarily an incapacity of

traditional societies to overcome the consequences of natural hazards

occurrence, it is due to the foreign relief aid that disrupts indigenous

resilience systems rather than to the intrinsic incapability of affected

societies (Waddell 1975, 1983; Torry 1978b, Cijffers 1987, Ali

1992). The radical approach is fed by the work of Spillius (1957),

eventually revisited by Torry (1978a) and Boehm (1996), on the

small island of Tikopia (Solomon islands), which was devastated by

two typhoons and a subsequent famine between 1952 and 1953; the

documentation of Schneider (1957) on the island of Yap regularly

swept by tropical storms; the monumental study of Oliver-Smith

(1977, 1979a, b, c, 1992) about the Quechua Indians of Yungay

following the total destruction of their town by a debris avalanche

triggered by the 1970 Peruvian earthquake; the researches of Lewis

(1981, 1999), Hurell (1984) and Rogers (1981) among the people

of Tonga in the face of typhoons and following the restless activity

of Niuafo’ou volcano in 1946; the comparative study of Holland

and VanArsdale (1986) in Indonesia and Peru among communities

affected by flash floods; and the investigation of Zaman (e.g.

1989, 1994, 1999; Haque and Zaman, 1994) among Bangladeshi

Gaillard: Traditional Societies in the Face of Natural Hazards


communities recurrently affected by floods, and Cijffers (1987) in

the Cook Islands regularly struck by hurricanes.

Finally, the third approach regarding the responses of traditional

societies in the face of natural hazards defends an intermediate

viewpoint. It argues that the occurrence of natural hazards rather

acts as a catalyst for ongoing cultural changes among traditional

societies increasingly pressured by the industrial world (Blong 1984;

Bates and Peacock, 1986; Oliver-Smith 1996). This phenomenon

has been observed among several Tarascan Indian communities

following the eruption of Paricutín volcano in Mexico between 1943

and 1952 (Rees 1970; Nolan 1979; Nolan and Nolan 1993), among

Guatemalan Mayas after the 1976 earthquake (Bates 1982; Cuny

1983; Hoover and Bates 1985), and among Yemeni highlanders

following the 1982 earthquake (Leslie 1987).

The foregoing frameworks are all driven primarily by the concept of

vulnerability or the susceptibility of traditional societies to experience

disaster following the occurrence of natural hazards. They do not

address cultural change as a way of coping with the havoc wrought

by the disaster. In this paper, we aim to tackle the capacity of response

of traditional societies in the face of natural hazard through the lens of

the concept of resilience. Our discussion will be based on the case of

the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines and its

impact on the Aeta communities. To assess the Aetas’ resilience will

first require evaluating if the eruption brought about some changes in

the folk culture. A critical review of the factors that affected resilience

in the Mt. Pinatubo case will eventually lead to the advancing of an

alternative approach to the response of traditional societies in the face

of the occurrence of natural hazards.

The 1991 Mt. Pinatubo Eruption and the Aetas

The Aetas are one of the many ethnic minorities occupying

the mountains of the Philippine islands. They are found on the

flanks of Mt. Pinatubo which towers at the apex of the provinces

of Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales on the main island of Luzon

(Figure 1). Considered by some as the direct descendants of the

populations that first inhabited the archipelago during the Pleistocene

11

Period (Headland and Reid 1989), the Aetas’ small height, very

dark complexion, and curly hair easily distinguish them from the

majority of Filipinos who are taller and are characterized by brown

skin and straight hair. The approximately 50,000 Aetas counted on

the slopes of Mt. Pinatubo in 1999 depend for their livelihood on

cultivating root crops and other vegetables, hunting and fishing,

and also on gathering plants and wild fruits that abound in their

surroundings (Barrato and Benaning 1978; Garvan 1964; Reed

1904; Shimizu 1989). The following paragraphs particularly focus

on the communities located within the 200km2-Pasig and Sacobia

River Basins on the eastern flank of Mt. Pinatubo, in the immediate

vicinity of the former Clark American facilities (Clark Air Base

– CAB) (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Areas Affected by the 1991 Eruption of Mt Pinatubo

and Location of the Study Area (After Data from PHIVOLCS

and Mount Pinatubo Commission).

1

25

30

40

10

5

MANILA BAY

SOUTH

CHINA

SEA

BATAAN

BULACAN

PAMPANGA

NUEVA

ECIJA

TARLACZAMBALES

Botolan

Cabangan

San

Narciso

San

Marcelino

Olongapo CityDinalupihan

Guagua

San Fernando

Angeles

City

ConceptionCapas

Tarlac

50

20

15

Mt Pinatubo

SUBIC

BAY

Clark

Air Base

Gumain River

Sacobia / Bamban River

O'Donnel R

iver

Bucao River

Sto Tomas

Abacan River

Pasig Potrero RiverPorac

River

Bamban

5

Dueg

Palayan City

Kalangitan

Maynang

LubaoSubic

Poonbato

Villar

Subic

Naval

Base

Sapang

Bato

Dau

Magalang

Mt Arayat

20°N

15°N

10°N

5°N

120°E 125°E

CELEBES SEA

SULU SEA

PH

ILIPPIN

E S

EA

Studyarea

Manila

200 km

SOUTHCHINASEA

0 20km

June 1991pyroclastic deposits

Lahar deposits

Isopachs (in cm)of airfall deposits

Active lahar channels

Provincial limits

Towns

Doña Josefa

PInaltakan

MabalacatMadapdap

Villa

Maria

Aeta resettlement sites



Figure 2: Spatial Redistribution of the Aeta Villages in the

Pasig and Sacobia River Basins Subsequent to the

Eruption of Mt Pinatubo in 1991.

Mabubuteun

Pamatayan

Calang

Kaging

Mataba

StaInesSta Rosa

Burug

San Martin

Sacobia

Haduan

Target

Sitio Babo

InararoCamatsilis

Sapang Uwak

Sapang Uwak

Sacob

ia Rive

r

Abacan River

Sapang Cauayan

Marimla River

Mabulilat Angeles City

Mabalacat

Bamban

Sacobia Rive

r

Bamban River

Calumpang

MarcosVillage

Pulang Lupa

Clark Air Base Area

PoracDiaz

Calapi

Porac River

Calapi

Inararo

TimboBingaBanabaPanabunganMt

Mc Donald

Mt Dorst

To Planas

To MadapdapResettlement

Site

Burakin

To Palayan City

Bliss

Gate 14

Baguingan

Burug

San Martin

Pasig River

To Dueg Resettlement SiteTo Kalangitan Resettlement Site

To Maynang Resettlement Site

Abandoned settlements

Old settlementsstill occupied in 2001

New settlements

Main towns

Main movementsof population

Kapampanganlowland territory

50cm ash

20cm ash

fall deposits

deposits

fall

Villa Maria ResettlemetSite0 2km

Isopach of ashfall deposits

Pyroclastic flow deposits

Present upper limitof Aeta settlements

The Aetas were the first to feel the precursory signs of the volcano’s

restlessness during the first days of April 1991; they responded by

immediately warning the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and

Seismology (PHIVOLCS) (Lubos na Alyansa ng mga Katutubong

Ayta ng Sambales 1991; Tayag et al. 1996). This abnormal volcanic

activity intensified until June 1991. The eruptive paroxysm

materialized on June 12 and June 15. On these particular dates, the

volcano spewed some 5 to 7 km3 of pyroclastic materials that buried

many Aeta villages located on the slopes of Mt. Pinatubo. Since

15 June 1991, destructive lahars (volcanic debris flows), triggered

by typhoon-associated downpours, tropical monsoon rains and lake

break outs, have flowed down the flanks and foothills of the volcano

affecting anew a large number of these Aeta settlements (Pinatubo

Volcano Observatory 1991; Umbal 1997; Wolfe 1992).

13

In April 1991, with the initial signs of restlessness by the volcano,

almost all of the Aeta communities were already evacuated (Banzon-

Bautista and Tadem 1993). However, an unknown number of Aetas

who refused to leave their homes perished during the eruption.

According to oral accounts, a score of Aetas found shelter in caves that

had eventually been buried by pyroclastic flows (Shimizu 2001). At

first, the Aetas who chose to evacuate were relocated in some major

surrounding towns (Tarlac City, Capas, Bamban, Mabalacat, Angeles

City, Porac, etc.). Eventually, with the paroxysm of the eruption

on June 15 that affected even the town inhabitants, the authorities

had to once again transfer many Aeta families toward evacuation

centers that were much farther (e.g., provinces of Bulacan, Nueva

Ecija and Manila) from their villages. Inside overcrowded school

buildings, gymnasiums, churches or tent camps, nutrition problems

and diseases (pneumonia, measles…) quickly spread and left a

heavy death toll among Aeta children (Lapitan 1992; Magpantay

1992; Magpantay et al. 1992; Sawada 1992).

Faced with the impossibility of sending the Aetas back to their

former villages which had already been buried under meters of

volcanic deposits, the Philippine government had to plan a permanent

resettlement program. By June 1991, the authorities created the

Task Force Mt. Pinatubo, which was replaced in 1992 by the Mount

Pinatubo Commission (MPC), an intergovernmental structure under

the authority of the President of the Philippines. The task force then

had created eleven upland resettlement centers intended primarily

for the Aetas (Task Force Mount Pinatubo 1991). The Aetas from

the Pasig and Sacobia river basins were mainly distributed on four

sites (Villa Maria, Kalangitan, Dueg, and Maynang). Dueg, the most

remote, is about 100km away from the native villages. In each of

the centers, a lot measuring 150m² together with traditional housing

materials (bamboo, palm leaves…) was allocated for each family.

In 1995, more solid building materials (‘GI sheets’, lumber…) were

provided (Tariman 1999). Some Aetas of the Clark Air Base vicinity

were resettled in a lowland relocation site, Madapdap (municipality

of Mabalacat), with 7,000 lowland families from the neighboring

‘Kapampangan’ ethno-linguistic group who were affected by the

lahars from the Pasig-Potrero and Sacobia Rivers. Each family was



awarded a 94m² lot with a concrete house equipped with sanitary

installations (Tariman 1999). There were also two resettlement

centers (Doña Josefa and Pinaltakan) implemented by NGOs

at Palayan City (province of Nueva Ecija) where the Pinatubo

Aetas rubbed shoulders with other upland ethno-linguistic groups

(Dumagats and Bagos) from the Sierra Madre mountain range.

Other resettlement attempts in more remote places such as the island

of Palawan failed because of unsuitable conditions that pushed the

Aetas back to Central Luzon (Gaillard and Leone 2000).

Methodology

The following discussion relies on extensive field work conducted

in the basin of the Pasig and Sacobia rivers between July 1999 and

June 2000 and completed by additional field explorations between

June and September 2001. The lack of reliable census data for the

study area compelled the researcher to abandon the sampling survey

and instead opt for open interviews with selected key informants.

Sixteen villages were visited. Only three occupied settlements were

avoided: one because of security concerns and the two others because

of their inaccessibility. The four neighboring resettlement sites (Villa

Maria, Kalangitan, Maynang and Madapdap) were also part of the

study. Key informants were not limited to community leaders and

included other members (both men and women) of the communities

visited. Interviews were conducted in the Kapampangan language

spoken by almost all the Aetas. Local guides sometimes served as

interpreters in the local Aeta Mag-Aantsi dialect. Questions sought

to assess the pre-eruption lifestyle, the response of the victims to

the disaster, notably their journey up to their present settlement,

and the present way of life. Community leaders further provided

approximate population figures for their village. All the respondents

were cooperative and were willing to share their experience.

In addition to the survey among the Aeta settlements, interviews

were conducted with stakeholders of the Mt. Pinatubo disaster

management. Those include the Mt. Pinatubo Commission (MPC),

other government agencies (National Commission for Indigenous

People, Department of Social Welfare and Development, Department

15

of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Public Works

and Highways, Department of Health, Department of Agriculture,

Department of Education), local government units (LGUs) and non-

government organizations (NGOs). These interviews were aimed at

assessing the role of the authorities in the shaping of the observations

made on the field. A large amount of useful primary written documents

was also collected from these visits to institutions.

Field work was completed by the collection of secondary written

documents such as journal publications, conference proceedings,

and relevant press clippings from regional and national newspapers.

Both primary and secondary written materials provided information

mostly on the disaster management policy. Very few sources

discussed the response of the populations.

From Uplands to Foothills: The Inevitable

Redistribution of the Population

In 1990, about 1,200 to 1,300 Aeta families (approximately 7,000

individuals) were occupying the Pasig and Sacobia basins on both

the upper slopes and the lower foothills of Mt. Pinatubo (National

Statistics Office 1990; Tadem 1993). After the awakening of the

volcano in 1991, both the unsuitability of the upper flanks of the

mountain and the resettlement policy implemented by the Philippine

government led to a general redistribution of the Aeta population of

the Pasig and Sacobia river basins. Figure 2 shows that the present

upper limit of Aeta settlements matches the lower limit of the 1991

pyroclastic deposits and the 20cm-isopach of ash fall. All the Aeta

communities located on the upper flanks of Mt. Pinatubo prior to the

eruption had to abandon their small villages which had been buried

under these thick and hot pyroclastic and ashfall deposits preventing

the immediate reoccupation of the settlements. Most of these Aetas

have been relocated in the government resettlement sites, either on the

lower slopes of the volcano or on the foothills (Figures 1 and 2). Today,

these resettlement sites are the biggest Aeta settlements. Kalangitan,

the biggest relocation center is inhabited by 385 families. These

resettlement sites host Aeta communities from both the upper and

lower flanks of Mt. Pinatubo. The lack of land suitable for cultivation



and the inadequate housing in resettlement sites has however led many

Aeta families native to the lower slopes of Mt. Pinatubo to return to

their old villages and till their abandoned fields (Gaillard and Leone

2000; Macatol 1998, 2000; Macatol and Reser 1999-2000; Seitz

1998, 2000; Shimizu 1992). With the exception of Villa Maria, the

population of other resettlement centers, like Maynang and Palayan

City, has greatly decreased during the last few years. Other Aetas

native to the upper slopes of Mt. Pinatubo and who chose to leave the

resettlement sites have tried to rebuild their villages on more suitable

sites (e.g., Calapi, San Martin, Burug) or near the relocation centers

(e.g., Inararo). Worth noting is that other Aetas maintain residences

in resettlement sites and at the same time tend their fields near their

former villages. This practice is very prevalent in Villa Maria. It is

now also being practiced in Maynang, prompting the service of daily

or weekly shuttles to and from their original villages. Finally, ten years

after the eruption, several families still live in evacuation centers that

were intended for temporary purposes. At Planas, for example, tents

have been replaced by bamboo huts and other sturdier structures.

All the Aeta settlements are nowadays concentrated on the lower

flanks of Mt. Pinatubo in the immediate proximity of lowland

villages and towns occupied by Kapampangan people, the dominant

ethnic group of the southwestern part of the Central Plain of Luzon

(Figure 2). Henceforth, there are no more Aeta communities left

isolated on the upper flanks of Mt. Pinatubo. All have established

regular contacts with lowlanders.

Increasing Interactions with Lowlanders

The closer geographic proximity between Aeta people and their

lowland neighbors, induced by the downhill redistribution of the

population following the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption, has increased

the interactions between the two communities. These interactions

are economic and social, as well as political.

Until Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, regular economic interactions

between Aetas and lowlanders were limited to the communities located

on the lower slopes of the volcano. Many Aetas of the villages situated

near the former Clark Air Base were both agriculturists and employed

17

by the US Air Force as watchmen, jungle survival instructors, and

janitors while others earned their living by scavenging the garbage of

the US servicemen in the area or by gathering scrap materials left by the

Americans during their training (Cunanan 1982-83; Gaabucayan 1978;

Simbulan 1983). The Aetas living in villages farther away from Clark

Air Base used to sell or swap their products for rice, coffee, or sugar in

the public markets of the surrounding towns at least once a week. Aeta

communities living on the highest slopes of Mt. Pinatubo lived almost

exclusively on tilling different rootcrops, hunting, fishing and gathering

tropical fruits without regular contact with lowlanders and other

ethno-linguistic groups. Noteworthy is that despite these significant

differences in their way of life, upland and lowland communities can

still be regarded as a single ethnic group on the basis of their common

physical features, language, traditional beliefs and inter-individual

relationship based on a great sense of ‘communalness’ (Barrato and

Benaning 1978; Brosius 1983; Fox 1952; Shimizu 1989). The downhill

redistribution of the population following the 1991 eruption has deeply

modified the economic landscape by making all the Aetas dependent

on the lowland market to earn their living. Interviews conducted in the

Pasig and Sacobia river basins in 1999 and 2000 show that, at present,

there are no more isolated communities and all the Aetas have thus

learnt to sell their produce directly in the public markets of surrounding

towns without being deceived by Kapampangans who used to act as

middlemen. Besides the traditional public markets, the former Clark Air

Base converted into a vast industrial, tourist and commercial complex,

Clark Special Economic Zone (CSEZ), has become another fruitful

commercial outlet for the Aetas. The Aetas are now all selling fruits

(bananas, papayas…), vegetables (banana tree hearts…), rootcrops

(taro, cassava…) and souvenir items (flutes, bows, blowpipes…) to

local and foreign tourists visiting the Duty-Free shops of Clark Special

Economic Zone. These economic interactions between Aetas and their

surrounding communities, especially with Kapampangans, now take

place on an almost daily basis and hence concern all the Aeta people.

Social interactions between Aetas and their lowland neighbors

began as soon as they rubbed shoulders together inside the overcrowded

evacuation centers that hosted the victims of the eruption of Mt.

Pinatubo in June 1991. Most of the Aetas interviewed who never



previously lived beyond the domains of their respective communities

on the upper flanks of the volcano discovered for the first time the

socio-cultural way of life of the lowlands. Aetas also admitted that

they experienced cohabitation difficulties and discrimination from

non-Aetas who had to scamper for the much needed attention of the

authorities. This situation inside the evacuation centers lasted only

for a few months. Nonetheless social contacts between Aetas and

lowland neighbors continued. The redistribution of the population

downhill and the subsequent closer geographic proximity have

resulted in permanent social interactions. For example, the closer

distance to school facilities and the support of government and non-

government organizations have led many young Aetas to now share

school benches with lowland children. Moreover, these interactions

are daily and long-lasting, and concern the young generation that is

supposed to be the most permeable to cultural change. Data from

the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) show

that the literacy rate among the Aeta people has thus risen from 4

per cent of the population in 1990 to 30 per cent in 2000. Presently,

most of the youth study until they reach the age of 12 (elementary

school). Moreover, literacy programs for adults are being provided

by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples and other NGOs,

especially within the resettlement centers.

Finally, there are increasing political interactions between Aetas

and surrounding lowland communities. Most of these contacts

have been conveyed by the increasing density of population on the

lower slopes of the volcano as a result of the coming-in of former

uphill communities. The competition for land has become intense,

involving long-time downhill Aeta communities, former uphill

Aetas, lowland Kapampangans whose high population growth

rate pushes them toward the lower slopes of the mountain, and the

developers of Clark Special Economic Zone who try to expand the

area intended for economic development. The numerous territorial

conflicts which have emerged following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo

are symptomatic of the increasing pressure put on the land (Gaillard

2002). These conflicts have pressed the Aetas to engage in delicate

political negotiations with their lowland neighbors as well as with

government administrations. The Aetas coming from the upper slopes

19

of the volcano who were interviewed as part of this study admitted

that they were unused to such transactions. They further claimed

that numerous Kapampangans took advantage of the ignorance of

some Aetas on the real land-valuations, managing to buy lands from

the latter at very low prices and use unjust leases.

Non-Aeta Socio-Cultural Inputs in the Aeta Culture (see Table 1)

The redistribution of the population on the lower slopes of the

mountain and the following increasing economical, social and political

interactions between Aetas and non-Aetas had some socio-cultural

implications. These interactions progressively compelled the Aetas to

adopt cultural elements from their lowland neighbors. Differentiation

has yet to be made between the communities coming from the upper

flanks of the volcano and those which have been on the foothills of the

mountain for a long time. Among the latter, acculturation was already

ongoing long before the eruption. The communities which were

located around the former Clark Air Base, in Angeles or Mabalacat,

have been deeply influenced by their daily contacts with the Americans

(Dale 1985). Those located farther away from the base, in Porac or

Bamban, were less acculturated though not spared by their weekly

contact with their lowland neighbors (Mendoza 1982). Therefore, the

input of non-Aeta cultural elements due indirectly to the 1991 Mt.

Pinatubo eruption is more apparent among the communities formerly

settled on the upper slopes of the volcano.

The first cultural change concerns the settlement pattern. Before the

eruption, Rice (1973: 256) and Brosius (1983: 134) described clusters

of two-three to five-fifteen houses as typical settlements of the upper

flanks of Mt. Pinatubo. On the lower slopes, settlements were larger,

especially for the villages in the vicinity of Clark Air Base (Sapang

Bato, Marcos Village). The redistribution of the population downhill

subsequent to the eruption and the concurrent increasing density of

population have led to a generalization of large settlements. This is

evident in the resettlement sites but also in most of the villages located

in the basins of the Pasig and Sacobia rivers visited during field work

conducted as part of this study. Today, most of the Aetas coming from

uphill live in settlements which number several tens of houses.


20

Inte

rnational Journ

al of M

ass E

merg

encie

s a

nd D

isaste

rs

1990 2000

Uphill communities Foothill communities Both former communities

Settlement pattern Small cluster Varied Larger cluster

Religious belief Apo Namalyari / Anitos Both animist and Christian Jesus Christ / Holy Spirits

Medicine Plants / Manganito Plants / Manganito /

Chemical drugs

Chemical drugs

Social leadership Apo Apo Barangay captain / Tribal leader

Territory demarcation No discrete boundaries No discrete boundaries

/ Western concept of

ownership

Administrative boundaries (barangays,

ancestral domains) and western concept

of ownership

Language / dialect Mag-Aantsi Mag-Aantsi / Kapampangan Mag-Aantsi / Kapampangan

Housing material Indigenous Indigenous Foreign

Diet

Tubers / Fruits

Tubers / Fruits / Canned

and fast foods

Canned and fast foods

Clothing Lubay / Indigenous dresses Indigenous dresses /

Western labels

Western labels

Christmas habits None None Quest for Aguinaldo

Table 1. Main Non-Aeta Cultural Inputs in the Aeta’s Culture Following the 1991 Eruption of

Mt. Pinatubo and the Subsequent Redistribution of the Population.

21

The second element of cultural change is the religious beliefs of

the Aetas. Before the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, Aetas, especially

those who used to live uphill, traditionally believed in a number of

supernatural beings called ‘Anito’ (good spirit) or ‘Kamana’ (malicious

spirit). The universal creator, or ‘Apo Namalyari’, was supposed to

live at the heart of Mt. Pinatubo (Fox 1952; Lubos na Alyansa ng mga

Katutubong Ayta ng Sambales 1991; Shimizu 1989). On the lower

slopes of the mountain, the number of Aetas getting Christianized by

Catholic or Protestant missions was increasing long before the eruption

but most of them still kept Apo Namalyari and the Anitos at the core of

their beliefs. Due to their redeployment on easily accessible foothills

following the eruption, all the Aetas eventually became easy prey to a

number of religious organizations and sects that mushroomed in their

present villages and used disaster relief as a facade for evangelization.

The ‘kindness’ of the missionaries served as a powerful argument to

lead a large number of Aetas from the Pasig and Sacobia river basins

to become active members of mainstream religions. At present, key

informants acknowledge that Apo Namalyari is assimilated to Jesus

Christ or the representative of God on earth. In the same way, the

Anitos are compared to the Holy Spirit.

Since 1991, there have been modifications in their traditional

medicine as well. These have been brought about both by the

redistribution of the population as well as the extinction of many

plant species following the eruption (Madulid 1992). Indeed, Aetas

were recognized for their expertise in the chemical properties of

plants (Fox 1952). They were also known for their traditional way

of curing sicknesses through ‘manganito’ séances where they used

to seek assistance from the spirits (Shimizu 1983, 1989). Only in the

vicinity of Clark Air Base did the Aetas benefit from free health care

offered by the US Air Force in exchange for the former’s services in

improving their GI’s jungle survival skills. New religious beliefs and

the depletion of many natural drugs pushed the Aetas to adopt modern

medical treatments provided by the government and other civic-

oriented groups (Ignacio and Perlas 1994; Alvarez-Castillo 1997)

which benefit from the easier access to the Aeta settlements. Moreover,

there are now only a few Aetas who still practice manganitos séances

which were once intended to cure the most serious sicknesses.



This integration of the two (animist and non-Aeta or lowland)

cultures is also very much visible in the novel social references

of the Aetas. The village chieftain of the Aetas at present is much

different from those of the communities before the eruption, who

then had the appellate ‘Apo’ because of his seniority (Jocano 1998).

The researcher’s interviews indicate that for a chieftain of the clan

to be able to retain a moral influence on the community (especially

at Porac), the ‘captain’ or ‘tribal chieftain’, is usually chosen on the

strength of his political influence exogenously, rather than because

of his age. This exerts a new administrative role. It is indeed viewed

as the representative of the State within the village and, thus, is

in contact with the different local authorities (mayor, governor,

congressman/woman…) and the main institutions. The provincial

government of Tarlac has even established a parallel consultative

political system for the Aetas. This includes a ‘Tribal Chieftain’ at

the level of the village, a ‘Tribal Mayor’ at the municipal level, and a

‘Tribal Governor’ at the provincial level. This hierarchy was largely

shaped by concerns about dealing with political matters. Before

the eruption, Brosius (1983: 136) furthermore asserted that uphill

Aeta communities did not claim discrete and bounded territories.

Only near Clark Air Base and the Sacobia river basin, where former

First Lady Imelda Marcos implemented an integrated development

project, were Aetas used to western land ownership rights (Sacobia

Development Authority 1985; Tadem 1993). The demographic

pressure induced by the redistribution of the population and the

continual encroachment of non-Aetas on their lands pushed all the

Aetas to noticeably modify their relation to their territory and to now

claim their own territorial units (‘barangays’—the smallest Philippine

administrative unit—or ‘ancestral domains’—established as part

of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997), to be administered

exclusively by and for themselves (Gaillard 2002).

The next non-Aeta cultural input in the Aeta culture is the language

of the lowlanders. Before 1991, the Aetas of the upper flanks of Mt.

Pinatubo interviewed for this study used to communicate exclusively

using their native tongue Aeta Mag-Aantsi, an Aeta dialect close to

the Sambal language. Usage of the Kapampangan lowland language

was limited to the lower slopes of Mt. Pinatubo where regular contacts

23

occurred between Aetas and Kapampangans. Today it is widespread

among all the Aetas of the Pasig and Sacobia river basins. Following

their relocation downhill and their subsequent schooling, the young

Aetas had to speak the language of the lowlanders to communicate

with their classmates. It is thus common nowadays to hear Aeta

Mag-Aantsi children speaking Kapampangan when playing in their

backyards. The Kapampangan language also spread among the

adults. Those interviewed admitted that they use the Kapampangan

language due to the increasing political and economic interactions

with Kapampangan people who do not speak Aeta Mag-Aantsi.

Observations during field work and interviews with key informants

show that the western material culture has now also penetrated

communities that would have been most unlikely prior to 1991, owing

to their remoteness from the lowland populations. Lowland house

materials are now rapidly spreading among the Aeta settlements. The

ready-to-use diagonal-oriented ‘sawaling (light wall material made of

waived bamboo) Tagalog’ (from the dominant ethno-linguistic group

of the Philippines) and other modern construction materials (cement,

‘GI-sheet’…) are gaining ground on the traditional and robust square-

oriented ‘sawaling Aeta’. Canned and ‘fast foods’, which former

uphill villagers discovered for the first time in the evacuation centers

in 1991, are also quickly becoming the favorite delicacies of most

of the Aetas in lieu of tubers and fruits. The traditional ‘lubay’ (G-

strings) and other native dresses, which uphill Aetas were regularly

wearing before 1991, are progressively being replaced by pants with

international labels. Drinking (notably gin) has now also become

prevalent among all Aetas. Influenced by the new commercial

markets, traditional craftworks and utensils (bows and arrows,

blowguns, flutes, baskets…) are now being transformed into folkloric

items for sale to tourists visiting Clark Special Economic Zone. For

the Aetas from the vicinity of the former American military facilities

who were used to western clothing and food regularly distributed

by the servicemen, changes were much less radical and limited to a

larger proportion of western housing material.

Another consequence of the increasing social contacts with

lowland neighbors is the Aeta children’s quest for little Christmas

cash gifts (Aguinaldo) during the month of December, a widespread



custom among non-Aeta children in the Philippines. For that reason,

Aeta children now roam the streets of Porac, Angeles City and San

Fernando in the hopes of receiving a small Christmas donation from

lowlanders (Sicat 2001).

Other fundamentals of the Aeta social organization have however

undergone less change. The most important is the ‘communalness’ of

the Aetas recognized long before 1991 and considered as the center

of the social and economic life (Barrato and Benaning 1978; Brosius

1983; Fox 1952; Shimizu 1989). Indeed, the Aetas are, among all the

other Negritos of the Philippines, the only group to focus towards

a core which is the grouping of two to five families. In this regard,

it is particularly important to note that this peculiarity has survived

the eruption. Interviews with key informants indeed indicate that

groups of two to three Aeta households still co-exploit swiddens,

share food and journey together to the public markets for economic

transactions. Similarly, Aeta families are still nucleated around a

husband, his wife and their children as they were before the eruption

of Mt. Pinatubo (Brosius 1983; Shimizu 1989). Furthermore, the

survey conducted in the Pasig and Sacobia river basins indicate that

the Aetas have retained the strong identity attachment to their village

mentioned by Shimizu (1989). It is very evident in the gathering of

families from the same villages inside the resettlement sites. These

clusters are always named in respect to the community of origin.

The 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption brought undeniable but

differentiated changes in the Aeta society. On the other hand,

there are some fundamentals of the Aeta social system which have

survived the consequences of the disasters. Is it sufficient to assert

that the Aetas have been resilient in the face of the occurrence of a

powerful natural hazard?

Aeta Resilience in the Face of the Mt. Pinatubo Eruption

Changes in the Aeta society following the 1991 eruption of Mt.

Pinatubo have been brought by the increasing interactions with lowland

neighbors brought by the spatial redistribution of the population on

the foothills of the volcano. Changes have therefore concerned the

components of the Aeta social fabric exposed to these interactions. On

25

the other hand, some of the fundamentals pertaining to relationships

within the society, notably the sense of ‘communalness’, have been

less affected and have survived the eruption and its consequences.

Henceforth, the Aeta social system has not disappeared following the

disaster. It has rather adapted to new environmental, social, economic

and political environments while maintaining a stable core. This

viewpoint is further reinforced by the perseverance of the Aetas to

claim their own ethnic identity, as manifested by their massive abandon

of the resettlement centers. Thus, if resilient societies are those that are

able to overcome the damages brought by the occurrence of natural

hazards, either through maintaining their pre-disaster social fabric, or

through accepting marginal or larger change in order to survive, then

the Mt. Pinabuto Aetas of the Pasig and Sacobia river basins have been

resilient. However, a distinction has to be made between pre-1991

uphill and downhill communities. It is quite evident that the eruption

of Mt. Pinatubo and the subsequent redistribution of the population

brought major and abrupt changes in the way of life of former uphill

Aeta communities. Increased interactions with Kapampangan people

progressively led these communities to adopt lowland cultural

references. They also reoriented their economic activities toward the

market demand in the lowlands and no longer rely exclusively on

environmental resources (Table 1). Aetas from the upper flanks of Mt.

Pinatubo thus became resilient through openness and adaptability. The

latitude of the social fabric was wide and permeable enough to easily

accept large changes but did not allow the loss of some fundamentals

of the Aeta society such as the sense of ‘communalness’. Indeed, the

system was already in a state of precariousness induced by increasing

pressure from lowland groups.

On the other hand, the communities formerly situated at the

foothills of the mountain and near the old Clark Air Base underwent

fewer changes. Among these communities, acculturation was

already ongoing before the eruption, which acted as an accelerator

of the trend through further cultural adjustments and diversification

of economic activities (Table 1). Therefore, Aeta communities

from the lower slopes of Mt. Pinatubo have been resilient through

incremental and marginal change due to a narrower gap or latitude

between lowland and upland cultures.



The differential capacity of responses of the Aeta communities

and the amplitude of the cultural change did not lie exclusively in

the pre-disaster social fabric. It has been influenced by the context

of the disaster. For the past two decades, considerable attention has

been given to this question in the hazard and disaster literature (e.g.,

Wisner et al. 2004; Cannon 1994; Hewitt 1983, 1997; Lavell 1997;

Maskrey 1993; Susman, O’Keefe, and Wisner 1983). Natural hazards

such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, landslides, typhoons or

floods have different inherent characteristics such as diverse speed

of onset, temporal spacing and magnitude. Moreover, they occur in

very different geographical, social, political and cultural contexts

that contribute to shape the responses and adjustments of the victims.

It is therefore important to break away from universal patterns of

response to natural hazards as those mentioned in the first section of

this paper. It rather seems that the capacity of resilience of traditional

societies in the face of natural hazards and related cultural changes

are commanded by an intricate interrelation of several factors that

vary in time and space, from one event to another. These factors are

physical, socio-cultural, geographical and political in nature. The

following section illustrates each of them as a new approach to the

capability of traditional societies to overcome the damage brought

by the occurrence of natural hazards. Worth mentioning is that this

framework only applies to fast-onset and contemporary events like

the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption and thus excludes prehistoric and

slow-onset hazards phenomena like droughts and climatic changes.

Factors of Resilience of Traditional Societies in Facing the

Occurrence of Natural Hazards

Based on the Aetas’ experience following the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo

eruption, it is possible to identify several interdependent factors that

affect the capacity of resilience of traditional societies in the face of

the occurrence of natural hazards. These factors may be gathered

into four groups (Figure 3).

First is the nature of the hazard. The magnitude and the temporal

spacing of the event played a great role in shaping the long-term

consequences of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption on the Aeta communities.

27

In the Philippines, several authors have demonstrated the ability of

environment-dependent ethnic groups to cope with natural hazards

in a quite efficient way (Blolong 1996; Heijmans 2001; Insauriga

1999; Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology et al.

1998). However, most of the indigenous adaptations are in dealing

with recurrent, usually seasonal, events like typhoons and floods. The

magnitude of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption was far greater. Moreover,

despite the vague existence of an oral memory of a previous eruption

(Gaillard et al. 2005), the Aetas had to deal with a phenomenon they

did not know.

Figure 3: Factors of Resilience among Traditional Societies in

Facing the Occurrence of Natural Hazards.

The extent of damage also played a crucial role in the acculturation

of uphill Aeta communities following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.

Most of the Aeta villages were buried under several meters of

hot pyroclastic and ash fall deposits preventing the immediate

reoccupation of the upper slopes of the volcano. This is another

major difference from phenomena like typhoons or floods that allow

post-disaster reoccupation of the stricken area. Relocation downhill

following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo was a must and no other

alternatives were left for the Aetas.



The second factor affecting the capacity of resilience of traditional

societies is the intrinsic social condition of the particular group

exposed to a given hazard. It seems that the capability of traditional

societies to overcome disasters particularly depends on the pre-

disaster level of acculturation, the relationships between the affected

group and its neighbors, the diversity of pre-disaster livelihood, the

cultural attachment to the devastated site, the size of the community

affected and the age and the conservatism of the traditional leaders.

It is obvious that the deepest socio-cultural changes occurred

among those communities which were the least acculturated before

the eruption, whereas the most acculturated communities in 1990

only made small adjustments to the new environmental and socio-

economic contexts. The capacity of resilience therefore seems to be

directly linked to the pre-disaster level of acculturation. The more

traditional the community before the occurrence of the hazard, the

more prone it is to cultural change.

Closely related is the amplitude of pre-disaster socio-cultural

differences between the affected ethnic group and its neighbors, as

well as the intensity of inter-group interactions. It seems that the

larger the gap and the slighter the interactions, the more permeable

is the community and the deeper the cultural changes. Aetas from

the upper slopes of the volcano, who discovered the way of life

of the lowlanders during their stay in the evacuation centers, were

the most prone to cultural change. Conversely, changes were much

slighter among the communities from the foothills of the mountain

which had long been interacting with neighboring groups.

This study also confirmed that the communities which were

most prone to cultural changes were those with no diversification

of livelihoods. Uphill communities exclusively dependent on

agriculture for their living were rendered helpless by the destruction

of their fields by volumes of pyroclastic deposits. On the other hand,

the communities situated near the former Clark Air Base which used

to rely on several sources of livelihood turned out to be more capable

of further diversifying their activities after the disaster.

The extent to which a community is affected seems to have a

direct link with the capacity of resilience and post-disaster cultural

change as well. If the whole community is hit by a natural hazard,

29

resistance to cultural changes seems unlikely. The Mt. Pinatubo

eruption spared no Aeta community. All were affected and all the

Aetas experienced life in the evacuation and resettlement centers,

where contacts with the lowlanders first took place for those from

the uphill communities. The absence of intact villages, which would

have taken care of the Aeta traditions, did not allow a retreat to a

preserved socio-cultural environment.

In the Mt. Pinatubo case, preservation of socio-cultural references

was also hindered by the critical shift in leadership that followed

the eruption. The “Apo” or old wise man lost his prerogatives in

preserving and transmitting the indigenous traditions because of his

incapacity to deal with the new issues the Aetas had to cope with after

their relocation downhill. Younger leaders are now emerging from

among the different communities due to their ability to communicate

with lowlanders. This phenomenon has been reinforced by the

greater access of the youth to the educational system. This process

is viewed as a needed evolution in the Aeta society. Nowadays, this

has even compelled some communities to adopt young educated

women as their leaders. The age and conservatism of the traditional

leader before the disaster has thus shown to be a significant element

affecting the capacity of resilience of traditional societies in the face

of the occurrence of natural hazards.

The third factor is the geographic setting which is directly linked

to the two previous points. The lack of space in a homeland-like

environment for relocation without encroachment on other ethnic

groups and cultures is of critical importance. The existence of

available space is directly connected to the magnitude of the event

and the extent of damage brought among the affected communities.

In the case of the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption, there was certainly

no space available in a homeland-like environment for spontaneous

relocation. The resettlement sites selected by the government

encroached on lowlander territories and favored contacts between

Aetas and their neighbors. Foothill sites where other Aeta

communities spontaneously resettled also trespass on lowlanders’

lands. Moreover, attempts of the authorities to resettle Aetas in

similar but not identical physical milieu (Palawan and the Sierra

Madre of Luzon) have failed (Gaillard and Leone 2000).



The fourth and last factor affecting the capacity of resilience and

cultural change among the Aeta communities is the post-disaster

rehabilitation policy set up by the authorities. Some authors

mentioned the insensitivity of disaster managers and their lack of

cultural knowledge about the Aetas (Güss and Pangan 2004: 46).

Others (e.g., Bennagen 1996: 60 and also Shimizu 1992: 2) have

reported that some government officials were boasting of trying

to ‘civilize’ the Aeta through the rehabilitation programs initiated

in response to the disaster, especially through the resettlement

policy and social programs (education, health…). This may be

challenged. Major cultural changes among the Aeta communities

did not occur by direct inputs of the government but rather as a

progressive process due to geographic proximity which led to

increasing interactions with external lowland culture. However, it

is true that education within the resettlement centers contributed to

enlarge the cultural references of the youth. The fact that many Aeta

families are going back to the mountain further questions the role

of the government in the acculturation process that has occurred

among former uphill communities. It clearly demonstrates that the

Aetas tend to meet their own needs without any assistance from

the government or other NGOs (Bennagen 1996; Estacio Jr. 1996;

Seitz 1998). Yet, if the authorities did not directly input lowland

cultural references, they greatly participated in the relocation of

the victims downhill and conditioned the redistribution of the

population that occurred after the eruption. The close proximity

at present between Aeta communities and their lowland neighbors

greatly favor contacts of all sorts.

Furthermore, the fate of the Aeta communities cannot be detached

from the national government policy toward ethnic and cultural

minorities. At the time of the eruption, there were no specific

governmental guidelines to protect and defend ethnic minority rights

in the Philippines. It was only in 1997 that the Indigenous Peoples

Rights Act (RA 8371) was legislated (Department of Environment

and Natural Resources 1997). Therefore, it was most unlikely

that the Philippine government took appropriate measures for the

preservation of the Aeta culture in 1991.

31

Conclusions

The 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo has implied a massive

redeployment of the Aeta communities of the Pasig and Sacobia

river basins toward the foothills of the volcano. This demographic

redistribution has increased the geographic proximity between

Aeta communities and their lowland neighbors and concurrently

heightened the political and socio-economical relationships between

Aetas and non-Aetas. More than ten years after the eruption, the level

of cultural change induced by these increasing interactions has not

been uniform. The less acculturated communities before the event are

those who have undergone the highest level of cultural transformation.

On the other hand, the eruption only acted as an accelerator of an

on-going trend among the most acculturated communities before

the eruption. Both uphill and foothill communities have however

retained some fundamentals of the Aeta society, notably their sense

of ‘communalness’. An increasing number of families further try to

recover their pre-eruption way of life by leaving the resettlement

centers or by going back to the upper slopes of the volcano when

possible. Hence, Aeta communities have turned out to be resilient in

the face of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. Resiliency required a certain

level of cultural change and adaptation to the new environmental,

social, economic and political context. Former uphill Aetas resorted

to larger changes in their social system than their counterparts long

living on the lower slopes of the volcano who recovered through

marginal changes.

This flexibility of the Aeta society in the face of changing contexts

had already been noticed before the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo

(e.g., Brosius 1983; Shimizu 1989). For instance, Shimizu (1989: 78)

asserted that “the dynamism of Aeta social life hinges on the flexibility

and durability of the Aeta social system”. Indeed, during their long

history which may date back to the Pleistocene period, the Aetas

have had to cope with major environmental and cultural disturbances,

including several powerful eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo and earthquakes,

climate changes, the arrival of the ‘Austronesian’ agriculturists, the

coming of the Spaniards, and finally the establishment of American

military bases on their territory. Yet, they have managed to retain



specific cultural traits that still distinguish them from the majority of

the Philippine ethno-linguistic groups today.

The capacity of resilience of the Aetas and the level of culture

change that their society has undergone following the 1991

eruption of Mt. Pinatubo have been commanded by a complex

set of interacting factors. These factors include the nature and

magnitude of the hazard, the pre-disaster socio-cultural context,

the geographical context and the rehabilitation policy set up by

the authorities. It is evident that these factors vary somewhat in

time and space, from one disaster to another. Even at the scale of

the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and the Aeta people, conclusions drawn

from the case study of the Pasig and Sacobia river basins can barely

be generalized and extended to other flanks of the volcano (e.g.,

Seitz 2004). Given the great diversity of natural hazards and the

multiplicity of their local geographical context of occurrence, the

quest for a unique and universal theoretical framework assessing

the capacity of resilience of traditional societies in facing the

occurrence of natural hazards becomes secondary. More important

is to perceive the local variations of the factors detailed in this

paper to better anticipate the capability of traditional societies

to overcome the damage brought by the occurrence of natural

hazards and therefore predict eventual cultural change. This

framework is in line with the new approach of hazards and disaster

management programs which enhances a local consideration of

the problems rather than being limited to a transfer of technology

from industrialized to developing countries.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Greg Bankoff, Norma Bulaclac,

Jessie Candules, Nestor Castro, Lino Dizon, Rene Estremera,

Cyrene Gaillard, Guy Hilbero, Frédéric Leone, Catherine Liamzon,

Emmanuel Maceda, Joel Mallari, Michael Pangilinan, Wesley

Platon, Lanie Quemada-Dioniso, Tony Sibal and William Tolentino

for their contribution.

33

References

Ali, L. 1992. “Symbolic Planning and Disaster Preparedness in

Developing Countries: The Presbyterian Church in Vanuatu.”

International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 10

(2): 293-314.

Alvarez-Castillo, F. 1997. “Cultural Conflict in the Context of

Undemocratic Social Change: The Encounter of Modern Health

Care and the Aetas.” Pp. 235-240 in Papers and Proceedings of

the International Symposium on Disaster and Health. Manila:

University of the Philippines.

Banzon-Bautista, M.C.R. and E.C. Tadem. 1993. “Brimstone and Ash:

The 1991 Mt. Pinatubo Eruption.” Pp. 3-15 in In the Shadow of the

Lingering Mt. Pinatubo Disaster, edited by M.C.R. Banzon-Bautista.

Quezon City and Amsterdam: University of the Philippines-CSSP

and University of Amsterdam-Center for Asian Studies.

Barrato Jr., C.L. and M.N. Benaning. 1978. Pinatubo Negritos

(Revisited). Field Report Series No 5. Quezon City: Philippine

Center for Advanced Studies Museum.

Bates, F.L. 1982. Recovery, Change and Development: A Longitudinal

Study of the 1976 Guatemalan Earthquake. Athens: University

of Georgia.

Bates, F.L. and W.G. Peacock. 1986. “Disaster and Social Change.”

Pp. 291-330 in Sociology of Disasters: Contribution of Sociology

to Disaster Research, edited by R.R. Dynes, B. de Marchi and C.

Pelanda. Milan: F. Angeli.

Belshaw, C. 1951 “Social Consequences of the Mount Lamington

Eruption.” Oceania 21: 241-253.

Bennagen, P.L. 1996. “Amin Ito: Who Controls Disaster

Management.” Aghamtao: Journal of the Anthropological

Association of the Philippines 8: 56-64.

Blair, J.P. 1964. “Home to Tristan de Cunha.” National Geographic

125: 60-81.

Blolong, R.R. 1996. “The Ivatan Cultural Adaptation to Typhoons:

A Portrait of a Self-Reliant Community from the Indigenous

Development Perspective.” Aghamtao: Journal of the

Anthropological Association of the Philippines 8: 13-24.



Blong, R.J. 1984. Volcanic Hazards: A Sourcebook on the Effects of

Eruptions. Sydney: Academic Press.

Boehm, C. 1996. “Emergency Decisions, Cultural-Selection Mechanics,

and Group Selection.” Current Anthropology 37 (5): 763-793.

Brosius, J.P. 1983. “The Zambales Negritos: Swidden Agriculture

and Environmental Change”. Philippine Quarterly of Culture

and Society 11: 123-148.

Burton, I. 1972. “Culture and Personality Variables in the Perception

of Natural Hazards.” Pp. 184-195 in Environment and the

Social Sciences: Perspectives and Applications, edited by J.F.

Wohlwill and D.H. Carson. Washington: American Psychological

Association Inc.

Burton, I, R.W. Kates, and G.F. White. 1993. The Environment as

Hazard. 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press.

Cannon, T. 1994. “Vulnerability Analysis and the Explanation of ‘Natural’

Disasters.” Pp. 13-30 in Disasters, Development and Environment,

edited by Ann Varley. Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Cijffers, K.M. 1987. “Disaster Relief: Doing Things Badly.” Pacific

Viewpoint 28 (2): 95-117.

Cunanan, J. 1982-83. “The Impact of the United States Military Bases

on the Aetas (Negritos): Victims or Beneficiarie?” Aghamtao:

Journal of the Anthropological Association of the Philippines

5-6: 63-79.

Cuny, F.C. 1983. Disasters and Development. New York: Oxfam /

Oxford University Press.

Dale, C.D. 1985. “An Analysis of Variables Contributing to

Successful Employment of Negrito Males in Clark Air Base

Environ: Their Implications to Cross-Cultural Education.” Ph.D.

Dissertation, Angeles University Foundation, Angeles City.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 1997.

Indigenous People Republic Act of 1997: RA No 8371. Quezon

City: Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

D’Ercole, R. 1994. “Les Vulnérabilités des Sociétés et des Espaces

Urbanisés: Concepts, Typologies, Mode d’Analyse.” Revue de

Géographie Alpine 32 (4): 87-96.

Dovers, S.R., and J.W. Handmer. 1992. “Uncertainty, Sustainability

and Change.” Global Environmental Change 2 (4): 262-276.

35

Drabek, T.E. 1986. Human System Responses to Disaster: An Inventory

of Sociological Findings. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Dynes, R.R. 1976 “The Comparative Study of Disaster: A Social

Organizational Approach.” Mass Emergencies 1 (1): 21-32.

Estacio Jr., L.R. 1996. “Ang Antropolohiya ng Disaster sa Punto de

Bista ng mga Ayta: Ang mga Ayta ng Banawen, Maloma, San

Felipe, Zambales.” Aghamtao: Journal of the Anthropological

Association of the Philippines 8: 65-75.

Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, CS. Holling,

B. Walker, J. Bengtsson, F. Berkes, J. Colding, K. Danell, M.

Falkenmark, L. Gordon, R. Kasperson, N. Kautsky, A. Kinzig,

S. Levin, K.-G. Mäler, F. Moberg, L. Ohlsson, P. Olsson, E.

Ostrom, W. Reid, J. Rockström, H. Savenije, and U. Svedin. 2002.

Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive

Capacity in a World of Transformations. Scientific Background

Paper on Resilience for the process of The World Summit on

Sustainable Development. Stockholm: The Environmental

Advisory Council to the Swedish Government.

Fox, R.B. 1952. “The Pinatubo Negritos: Their Useful Plants and

Material Culture.” The Philippine Journal of Science 81 (3-4):

173-414.

Gaabucayan, S.P. 1978. “A Socio-Economic Study of the Pinatubo

Negritos of the Pampanga—Tarlac Area.” Ph.D. Dissertation,

University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City.

Gaillard, J.-C. 2002. “Territorial Conflicts Following Volcanic

Disasters: The 1991 Mt. Pinatubo Eruption (Philippines) and the

Aetas.” Philippine Geographical Journal 46 (1-4): 3-17.

Gaillard, J.-C. and F. Leone. 2000. “Implications Territoriales de

l’Eruption du Mont Pinatubo pour la Minorité Ethnique Aeta: Cas

des Bassins Versants des Rivières Pasig et Sacobia (Provinces

de Pampanga et Tarlac, Philippines).” Cahiers Savoisiens de

Géographie 1-2000: 53-68.

Gaillard, J.-C., F.G. Delfin Jr., E.Z. Dizon, J.A. Larkin, V.J. Paz,

E.G. Ramos, C.T. Remotigue, K.S. Rodolfo, F.P. Siringan, F.,

J.L.S. Soria, and J.V. Umbal. 2005. “Dimension Anthropique de

l’Eruption du Mont Pinatubo, Philippines, entre 800 et 500 Ans

BP.” L’anthropologie 109: 249-266.



Garvan, J.M. 1964. The Negritos of the Philippines. Horn: Verlag.

Güss, C.D. and O.I. Pangan. 2004. “Cultural Influences on Disaster

Management: A Case Study of the Mt. Pinatubo Eruption.”

International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 22

(2): 31-58.

Haque, C.E. and M.Q. Zaman. 1994. “Vulnerability and Responses

to Riverine Hazards in Bangladesh: A Critique of Flood

Control and Mitigation Approaches.” Pp. 65-79 in Disasters,

Development and Environment, edited by A. Varley. Chichester:

J. Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Headland, T.N. and L.A. Reid. 1989. “Hunter-Gatherers and their

Neighbors from Prehistory to the Present.” Current Anthropology

30 (1): 43-66.

Heijmans, A. 2001. Vulnerability: A Matter of Perception. Disaster

Management Working Paper 4/2001. Benfield Greig Hazard

Research Centre. London: University College of London.

Hewitt, K. 1983. “The Idea of Calamity in a Technocratic Age.” Pp.

3-32 in Interpretations of Calamity, edited by K. Hewitt. The

Risks and Hazards Series #1. Boston: Allen & Unwin Inc.

———. 1997. Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to

Disasters. Harlow: Longman.

Holland, C.J. and P.W. VanArsdale. 1986. “Responses to Disasters:

A Comparative Study of Indigenous Coping Mechanisms in Two

Marginal Third World Communities.” International Journal of

Mass Emergencies and Disasters 4 (3): 51-70.

Hoover, G.A. and F.L. Bates. 1985. “The Impact of a Natural

Disaster on the Division of Labor in Twelve Guatemalan

Communities: A Study of Social Change in a Developing

Country.” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and

Disasters 3 (3): 7-26.

Hurell, J. 1984. “Mitigation through Rehabilitation: Tonga’s

Cyclone Isaac.” Pp. 198-211 in Proceedings of the International

Conference on Disaster Mitigation Program Implementation

(Vol. 2). Ocho Rios, Jamaica, 12-16 November 1984.

Ignacio, L.L. and A.P. Perlas. 1994. From Victims to Survivors:

Psychological Intervention in Disasters Management. Quezon

City: University of the Philippines-IPPAO.

37

Ingleby, I. 1966 “Mt. Lamington Fifteen Years after.” Australian

Territories 6: 28-34.

Insauriga, S.I. 1999. “Natural Hazard Awareness and Disaster

Preparedness among the Bagobos of Mindanao.” Master’s thesis,

University of Santo Tomas, Manila.

Jocano, F.L. 1998. Filipino Indigenous Ethnic Communities:

Patterns, Variations, and Typologies. Quezon City: Punlad.

Kates, R.W. 1971. “Natural Hazard in Human Ecological Perspective:

Hypotheses and Models.” Economic Geography 47(3): 438-

451.

Kates, R.W., J.E. Haas, D.J. Amaral, R.A. Olson, R. Ramos, and

R. Olson. 1973. “Human Impact of the Managua Earthquake.”

Science 182 (4116): 981-990.

Keesing, F.M. 1952. “The Papuan Orokaiva vs. Mt. Lamington: Cultural

Shock and its Aftermath.” Human Organization 11: 26-22.

Klein, R.J.T., R.J. Nicholls, and F. Thomalla. 2003. “Resilience to

Natural Hazards: How Useful is this Concept?” Environmental

Hazards 5: 35-45.

Kottak, C.P. 2003. Anthropology: The Exploration of Human

Diversity. 10th ed., McGraw-Hill, Guilford.

Lapitan, J.M. 1992. “On Dealing with Mt. Pinatubo Disaster Victims

at the Palauig Evacuation Center in Zambales, Philippines: A

Cry of Woe, A Cry of Victory.” Pp. 63-73 in After the Eruption:

Pinatubo Aetas at the Crisis of their Survival, edited by H.

Shimizu. Tokyo: Foundation for Human Rights in Asia.

Lavell, A. (ed.). 1997. Viviendo en Riesgo: Comunidades Vulnerables

y Prevencion de Desastres en America Latina. Lima: La Red.

Leslie, J. 1987. “Think before you build, experiences after the Yemen

Earthquake.” Open House International 12 (3): 43-49.

Lewis, J. 1981. “Some Perspectives on Natural Disaster Vulnerability

in Tonga.” Pacific Viewpoint 22 (2): 145-162.

———. 1999. Development in Disaster-Prone Places: Studies of

Vulnerability. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Lewis, H.E., D.F. Roberts, and A.W.F. Edwards. 1972. “Biological

Problems, and Opportunities, of Isolation among the Islanders of

Tristan da Cunha.” Pp. 383-417 in Population and Social Change,

edited by D.V. Glass and R. Revelle. London: E. Arnold.



Lubos na Alyansa ng mga Katutubong Ayta ng Sambales. 1991.

Eruption and Exodus: Mt Pinatubo and the Aytas of Zambales.

Botolan: Lubos na Alyansa ng mga Katutubong Ayta ng Sambales.

Macatol, I.C. 1998. “Grass Huts or Concrete Blocks? Culturally

Appropriate Post-Disaster Housing for Indigenous Communities

in Mount Pinatubo, Philippines.” Pp. 260-270 in Proceedings

of Disaster Management: Crisis and Opportunity – Hazard

Management and Disaster Preparedness in Autralasia and the

Pacific Region, James Cook University (Australia), Nov. 1998.

———. 2000. The Role of Housing in Disaster Recovery of

Indigenous Groups: A Case Study of Post-Disaster Resettlement

of Mount Pinatubo Aetas. Ph.D. Dissertation, James Cook

University, Townsville.

Macatol, I.C. And J. Reser. 1999-2000. “A Reconsideration of the

Nature and Role of Resettlement Housing and Housing Materials

in Natural Disaster Recovery in Indigenous Communities.”

Australian Journal of Emergency Management: 33-41.

Madulid, D.A. 1992. “Mt Pinatubo: A Case of Mass Extinction of Plants

Species in the Philippines.” Silliman Journal 36 (1): 113-121.

Magpantay, R.L. 1992. Health Status of Aeta Children in Relocation

Camps: An Evaluation of the Aeta Emergency Targetted

Assistance Project. Department of Health, Manila.

Magpantay, R.L., I.P. Abellanossa, M.E. White, and M.M. Dayrit.

1992. “Measles among Aetas in Evacuation Centers after a

Volcanic Eruption.” P. 171 in Proceedings of the International

Scientific Conf. on Mt Pinatubo, Department of Foreign Affairs,

Pasay (Philippines), 27-30 May 1992.

Maskrey, A. 1989. Disaster Mitigation: A community Based

Approach. Development Guidelines No. 3. Oxford: Oxfam.

———. 1993. Los Desastres no son Naturales. Lima: La Red.

Mendoza, A.M. 1982. Community Organization and Development

Among the Negritos in Pampanga Using a Down-To-Earth

Experiential Pedagogy (DEES). Ph.D. Dissertation, Angeles

University Foundation, Angeles City.

Mileti, D.S., T.E. Drabek, and J.E. Haas. 1975. Human Systems in

Extreme Environments: A Sociological Perspective. Boulder:

Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

39

Munch, P.A. 1964. “Culture and Superculture in a Displaced

Community: Tristan da Cunha.” Ethnology 3 (4): 369-376.

———. 1970. “Economic Development and Conflicting Values: A

Social Experiment in Tristan da Cunha.” American Anthropologist

72 (6): 1300-1318.

National Statistic Office. 1990. 1990 Census of Population and

Housing: Report No 2-74C – Pampanga. Manila: National

Statistic Office.

Nigg, J.M. and K.J. Tierney. 1993. “Disaster and Social Change:

Consequences for Community Construct and Affect.”

Presentation during the Annual Meeting of the American

Sociological Association, Miami, 13-17 August 1993.

Nolan, M.L. 1979 “Impact of Parícutin on Five Communities.” Pp.

293-335 in Volcanic activity and Human Ecology, edited by P.D.

Sheets and D.K. Grayson. New York: Academic Press.

Nolan, M.L. and S. Nolan. 1993. “Human Communities and their

Responses.” Pp. 189-214 in Parícutin: The Volcano Born in a

Mexican Cornfield, edited by J.F. Luhr and T. Simkin. Phoenix:

Geoscience Press Inc.

Oliver-Smith, A. 1977. “Traditional Agriculture, Central Places, and

Post-Disaster Urban Relocation in Peru.” American Ethnologist

4: 102-116.

———. 1979a. “Post Disaster Consensus and Conflict in a

Traditional Society: The 1970 Avalanche of Yungay, Peru.”

Mass Emergencies 4: 43-45.

———. 1979b. “Disaster Rehabilitation and Social Change in

Yungay, Peru.” Human Organization 36 (1): 5-13.

———. 1979c. “The Yungay Avalanche of 1970: Anthropological

Perspective on Disaster and Social Change.” Disasters 3 (1):

95-101.

———. 1992. The Martyred City: Death and Rebirth in the Andes.

2nd ed. Prospect Park: Waveland Press.

———. 1996. “Anthropological Research on Hazards and Disasters.”

Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 303-328.

Panell, S. 1999. “Did the Earth Move for you? The Social Seismology

of a Natural Disaster in Maluku, Eastern Indonesia.” The

Australian Journal of Anthropology 10 (2): 129-143.



Passerini, E. 2000. “Disasters as Agents of Social Change in Recovery

and Reconstruction.” Natural Hazards Review 1 (2): 67-72.

Pelling, M. 2003. The Vulnerabilities of Cities: Natural Disasters

and Social Resilience. London: Earthscan.

Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology, Philippine

Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration

and Ugnayang Pang-Aghamtao Foundation Inc. 1998. Natural

Disaster Management among Filipino Cultural Communities.

Quezon City: Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology,

Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services

Administration, Ugnayang Pang-Aghamtao Foundation, Inc.

Pinatubo Volcano Observatory Team. 1991. “Lessons from a Major

Eruption: Mt Pinatubo – Philippines.” EOS, Transactions,

American Geophysical Union 72 (49): 545, 552-553, 555.

Reed, W.A. 1904 Negritos of Zambales. Ethnological Survey Pub.

Manila: Department of Interior.

Rees, J.D. 1970. “Paricutin Revisited: A Review of Man’s Attempts

to Adapt to Ecological Changes Resulting from Volcanic

Catastrophe.” Geoforum 4-1970: 7-25.

Rice, D. 1973. “Pattern for Development.” Philippine Sociological

Review 21: 255-260.

Rogers, G. 1981. “The Evacuation of Niuafo’ou, an Outlier in the

Kingdom of Tonga.” The Journal of Pacific History 16 (3): 149-

163.

Sacobia Development Authority. 1985. Sacobia: The Making of a Rural

Community. Clark Air Base: Sacobia Development Authority.

Sawada, T. 1992. “A Report from Tent City – Experience in Medical

Relief.” Pp. 63-73 in After the Eruption: Pinatubo Aetas at the

Crisis of their Survival, edited by H. Shimizu. Tokyo: Foundation

for Human Rights in Asia.

Schneider, D.M. 1957. “Typhoons on Yap.” Human Organization

16 (2): 10-15.

Schwimmer, E.G. 1977. “What Did the Eruption Mean?” Pp. 296-

341 in Exiles and Migrants in Oceania, edited by M.D. Leimer.

Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Seitz, S. 1998. “Coping Strategies in an Ethnic Minority Group: The

Aetas of Mt Pinatubo.” Disasters 22 (1): 76-90.

41

———. 2000. “Bewältigung einer Naturalkatastrophe: Die Aeta am

Mt. Pinatubo (Philippinen).” Geographische Rundschau 52 (4):

49-55.

———. 2004. The Aeta at the Mt. Pinatubo, Philippines: A Minority

Group Coping with Disaster. Quezon City: New Day Publishers.

Shimizu, H. 1983. “Communicating with Spirits: A Study of

Manganito Seance among the Southwestern Pinatubo Negritos.”

East Asian Cultural Studies 22 (1-4): 129-167.

———. 1989. Pinatubo Aytas: Continuity and Changes. Ateneo de

Manila University Press: Quezon City.

———. 1992. Past, Present and Future of the Pinatubo Aetas: At the

Crossroads of Socio-Cultural Disintegration. Pp. 1-49 in After the

Eruption: Pinatubo Aetas at the Crisis of their Survival, edited by

H. Shimizu. Tokyo: Foundation for Human Rights in Asia.

———. 2001. The Orphans of Pinatubo: The Ayta Struggle for

Existence. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing House.

Sicat, R.M. 2001. “Urban Migration of Aetas: A Retrospect on the

Socio-Cultural Identity of the Indigenous People of Tarlac.”

Tarlac State University Graduate Journal 19: 36-55.

Simbulan, R.G. 1983. The Bases of our Insecurity: A Study of

the US military Bases in the Philippines. Quezon City: Balay

Fellowship.

Sjoberg, G. 1962. “Disasters and Social Change.” Pp. 356-384 in

Man and Society in Disaster, edited by G.W. Baker and D.W.

Chapman. New York: Basic Books.

Spillius, J. 1957. “Natural Disaster and Political Crisis in a

Polynesian Society: An Exploration of Operational Research.”

Human Relations 10 (1): 3-27.

Susman, P., P. O’Keefe, and B. Wisner. 1983. “Global Disasters,

a Radical Interpretation.” Pp. 263-283 in Interpretations of

Calamity, edited by K. Hewitt. The Risks and Hazards Series

#1. Boston: Allen & Unwin Inc.

Tadem, E.C. 1993. Integrated Rural Development and US Baselands:

The Sacobia Project. Quezon City: University of the Philippines

Press.

Tariman, M.L.L. 1999. The Pinatubo Resettlement Strategy. Clark

Field: Mount Pinatubo Commission.



Task Force Mount Pinatubo. 1991. Rehabilitation and Reconstruction

Program for Mt Pinatubo Affected Areas. Manila: Task Force

Mt Pinatubo.

Tayag, J.C., S. Insauriga, A. Ringor, and M. Belo. 1996. “People’s

Response to Eruption Warning: The Pinatubo Experience, 1991-

1992.” Pp. 87-106 in Fire and Mud: Eruption and Lahars of

Mt Pinatubo, Philippines, edited by C.G. Newhall and R.S.

Punongbayan. Seattle / Quezon City: University of Washington

Press / Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology.

Timmerman, P. 1981. Vulnerability, Resilience and the Collapse of

Society: A Review of Models and Possible Climatic Applications.

Environmental Monograph No.1. Institute for Environmental

Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto.

Torry, W.I. 1978a. “Natural Disasters, Social Structure and Change

in Traditional Societies.” Journal of Asian and African Studies

13 (3-4): 167-183.

———. 1978b. “Bureaucracy, Community, and Natural Disasters.”

Human Organization 37(3): 302-308.

———. 1979. “Anthropological Studies in Hazardous Environments:

Past Trends and New Horizons.” Current Anthropology 20 (3):

517-540.

To Waninara, C.G. 2000. The 1994 Rabaul Volcanic Eruption:

Human Sector Impacts on the Tolai Displaced Communities.

Goroka: Melanesian Research Institute.

Umbal, J.V. 1997. “Five Years of Lahars at Pinatubo Volcano:

Declining but Still Potentially Lethal hazards.” Journal of the

Geological Society of the Philippines 52 (1): 1-19.

United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs. 1992. Glossaire

International Multilingue Agréé de Termes Relatifs à la Gestion

des Catastrophes. Geneva: United Nations Department of

Humanitarian Affairs.

United Nations Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy

for Disaster Reduction. 2004. Living with Risk: A Global Review

of Disaster Reduction Initiatives. Geneva: United Nations.

Waddell, E. 1975. “How the Enga Cope with Frost: Responses to

Climatic Perturbations in the Central Highlands of New Guinea.”

Human Ecology 3: 249-273.

43

———. 1983. “Coping with Frosts, Governments and Disaster

Experts: Some Reflections Based on a New Guinean Experience

and a Perusal of the Relevant Literature.” Pp. 33-43 in

Interpretation of Calamities, edited by K. Hewitt. The Risks and

Hazards Series #1. Boston: Allen & Unwin Inc.

Walker, B., C.S. Holling, S.R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004.

“Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social–

Ecological Systems.” Ecology and Society 9 (2): 5. http://www.

ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5 Accessed 26 October 2005.

Watts, M.J., and H.G. Bolhe. 1993. “The Space of Vulnerability: The

Causal Structure of Hunger and Famine.” Progress in Human

Geography 17(1): 43-67.

Wisner, B. 1993. “Disaster Vulnerability: Scale, Power, and Daily

Life.” GeoJournal 30(2): 127-140.

———. 2004. “Assessment of Capability and Vulnerability.” Pp.

183-193 in Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and

People, edited by G. Bankoff, G. Frerks and T. Hilhorst. London:

Earthscan.

Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis. 2004. At Risk:

Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters. 2nd. Ed.

London: Routledge.

Wolfe, E.W. 1992. “The 1991 Eruption of Mt Pinatubo, Philippines.”

Earthquakes and Volcanoes 23 (1): 5-37.

Zaman, M.Q. 1989. “The Social and Political Context of Adjustment

to Riverbank Erosion Hazard and Population Resettlement in

Bangladesh.” Human Organization 48 (3): 196-205.

———. 1994. “Ethnography of Disasters: Making Sense of Flood

and Erosion in Bangladesh.” The Eastern Anthropologist 47 (2):

129-155.

———. 1999. “Vulnerability, Disaster, and Survival in Bangladesh:

Three Case Studies.” Pp. 192-212 in The Angry Earth: Disaster

in Anthropological Perspective, edited by A. Oliver-Smith and

S.M. Hoffman. London: Routledge.


Aeta Response to Eruption

Documents

tristan da

tristan de

clark air

national statistic

sacobia river

rehabilitation

united nations

james cook